[Mmwg] IGF Input

[Milton Mueller]

>>> "William Drake" <drake at hei.unige.ch> 2/24/2006 2:56 AM >>>
>To government types used to working in international institutions, 
>a Council may imply a big, heavy, political, authoritative decision 
>making body, sort of a politburo.

Fine, if that label doesn't work let's find one that does. However, the difference between "coordinating committee" and "steering committee" is so minimal that we shouldn't waste any more time on it.

>I wouldn't use titles that describe participants, it's unnecessary 
>since the IGF is MS, period.  

You may be whistling in the dark

>> In general, this language gives the ms council too much
>> power. I would prefer to see the ideas for themes come from WGs
>> (which I renamed "email-based preparatory groups" to avoid
>> misunderstandings by governments) and the council limited to

>Sorry Milton, but methinks this be ugly and misleading.  
>of course any groups would use email, but they might 
>use web pages, wikis, telephones, F2F meetings as 
>necessary, etc, so why define them in terms of a
>single technique, particularly the one that governmentals 
>will be least excited about committing to at the outset.  

You're really missing the point here. 

The issue is whether the strucure is set up in a way that allows independent groups to propose and form thematic units which are then reacted to by the committee (approval, chairs, etc.) OR, whether the committee itself makes all the decisions about what thematic groups exist. And to what degree do those groups act autonomously of the committee? 

I judge from your discussion that you agree with my goal, you're just quibbling about the words. So if you don't like the way I made that point, do it better. Propose specific language. Time is short.

>On the second, I would not want to imply that the defining 
>function here is "preparatory," which again makes it sound like 
>the big annual hoo-hah is what the IGF is all about and 
>everything else just leads up to and feeds
>into it.

The defining function IS preparatory. The annual mmeetings WILL be the primary vehicle for getting things approved/completed/ publicized in the Forum. It's unrealistic to think otherwise. But it is just flat wrong to suggest that having a preparatory process somehow makes the IGF not "a process." There is no other way to make it a process. 

>If "working group" makes governments think bureaucratic 
>(it's not entirely clear why this would be)

Bill, I can't understand this comment. We were directly exposed to this misinterpretation by several govt representatives in Geneva. We (I think, actually, YOU) were all so concerned about it that an intervention was made explaining that WGs did not have to be heavy and bureaucratic. 

You comment that:

>We could instead suggest that variation, based on the 
>interests and objectives of the participants, be allowed, e.g. 
>WGs or e-working groups, study groups,
>networks, whatever.  All that matters is that they be 
>focused on work relevant to the IGF and meet some criteria for 
>recognition and operations,

Again, the "we could suggest..." type of comment is not welcome: it assumes that we are having a luxurious discussion. We are not. We are trying to forge a statement in only a few days. If you think "we should suggest" something, propose specific language as to how it should be suggested. 

I don't disagree with your point, but I think it is so subtle that it stretches the capacity of people to understand what you are talking about beyond the breaking point, especially Governmental delegations who are used to the traditional modalities.