[Mmwg] With the elections over... can we get to the subject at hand ?

[Max Senges]

Great to get to work!

some commenting and complementary points:

Wouldn't it be helpful to split the groups mandate in "issues & topics" 
, and "organisational setup & operation modalities"
--> as expressed before in my understanding our group (the mmwg) has 
convened with the goal of collaborating on the latter. Please correct me 
if i am mistaken.

Milton mentions "email-based preparatory groups "
- in my view one of our (mmwg) and the ms-group's key topics should be 
defining good "online discourse practice". Today's mailing list 
discussions are highly unstructured and great merit lies in organising 
and evolutionary optimising the (social) online discourse process.

- also i am not  happy with the limitation of the groups working tool 
being email (the preparatory and the later working groups). Again as my 
understanding is that one important part of the work ahead of us is to 
work on a proposal of how the collaboration/discursive/negotiation 
possibilities of the net can be optimally exploited, i pledge for us to 
mobilize our techie-expertise and propose a setup of an innovative 
online community collaboration environment. I accept that (as i have 
been told before) email is "the easiest" and 'it is what people know how 
to use', and usability is a heavy weight argument BUT conservative, 
neophobe attitude should not limit the pioneering  character of the IGF. 
Experimental and innovative tools and practices should be encouraged but 
at least be allowed within the IGF setup. And even though  i 100% 
support the idea of a light weight institutional setup (after my 
experience working in within the UN dinosaur bureaucracy), I believe 
staffing the IGF with a sufficient number of kickin' technies/hackers, 
and to make sure the IGF's webprecence is using today's best tools and 
practices. Also transparency/openess seems very appropriate to encourage 
collaborative community (open source style) development of the platform.

IMHO We can not expect the governments to contribute techie 
expertise/proposals, and the private sector will only attempt to sell 
(or market) proprietary solutions. Therefore i believe techie experties 
is one of the most valuable contritions we have to make. I was happy to 
see IGP's offer to consult and contribute to the 
provision/implementation of the ICT setup, and believe we as mmwg should 
develop concrete proposals on what the IGF platform should comprise. 
Let's remember Lessigs assessment that on the net, in the end, CODE 
defines the possibilities/rules. As such the online environment defines 
the collaboration/negotiation even more fundamental then the social 
constitution.

max

ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote:
> Building on Milton's good start...
>
> Quoting Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
>
>>
>>
>> Therefore, I appeal to our new coordinators to lead us to a quick 
>> statement. I suggest the following basic points:
>>
>> 1. Yes, there is a need for a "MS Group" to assist in convening the IGF.
>> (BUT NOTE this question: are we talking only about the Athens 
>> meeting, or about a precedent regarding the Forum as an ongoing entity?)
>
> I suggest review structure after first meeting.
>>
>> 2. The "MS Group" should be as small as possible. No more than 15 
>> people should be on it (e.g., one Gov, Biz and CS from each 
>> geographic region). We must resist efforts by some to turn it into a 
>> gigantic body with perfect representation of all the factions that 
>> exist regionally and intergovernmentally.
>>
> Agreed no more than 15. Not sure that 1 gov/biz/cs from each region is 
> ideal
> though and interested in other thoughts on structure. Will support 
> this if no
> other ideas forthcoming
>
>
>> 3. The mandate of the MS group should be to accept proposals for 
>> "themes" from stakeholders and to authorize the creation of 
>> lightweight, email-based preparatory groups around those themes. It 
>> should also develop a conference structure for the first meeting, in 
>> consultation with the conference hosts (e.g., how many plenaries, how 
>> many breakouts).
>
> Needs expanding. Group should advise Greek hosts on elements to be 
> included in
> conference structure or work with Greek hosts, not mandate the structure.
>
> Group should also look at matters re accreditation/attendance/support 
> for ldc
> attendance etc?
>
> Group may assist in recommending expertise in certain issue areas to 
> prepare
> presentations/papers?
>>
>> 4. The MS group should be formed by having each stakeholder group 
>> submit nominations to the current Secretariat (Kummer's group). There 
>> should be a neutral, online mechanism for submissions and a template 
>> for the required information.
>
> Happy with that
>>
>> These are my immediate ideas. Some of them no doubt need improvement 
>> and modification. Hopefully we can reach some agreement in time to 
>> submit something.
>>
>> Dr. Milton Mueller
>> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> http://www.digital-convergence.org
>> http://www.internetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmwg mailing list
>> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
>> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>