[Mmwg] IGF Input

[William Drake]

Hi Milton,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]

> 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 think it's a distinction with a difference, but would be happy not to
"waste any time on it" if people accept the suggestion.

> >I wouldn't use titles that describe participants, it's unnecessary
> >since the IGF is MS, period.
>
> You may be whistling in the dark

Don't think so
>
> 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 agree, and said so in both the caucus meeting and in my second
intervention in the consultation.  That I didn't bother say it again here
doesn't mean that I'm missing it.  Obviously the first is preferable and it
would be good for us to say so.  Moreover, as I did say, the criteria for CC
approval would need to be transparent and principled.

> 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.

I agree with our shared goal and don't think my suggestions were quibbles.
As to language, this would be easier in context than in the abstract, i.e.
if there was a draft for us to offer suggestions on.  I'm not clear on
whether someone's agreed to take a first crack at this; perhaps our chairs
could instigate?  I don't have time to draft in the next couple of days but
can react and propose tweaks.

> 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.

I don't agree.  I think the IGF can and should be an umbrella under which
different streams of activity can be pursued.  The annuals would of course
be where anything would be formally agreed, but some useful activities could
be pursued that need not produce inputs to be formally agreed on by a
particular meeting.

> >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.

I did say that, precisely because the rubric was being misconstrued by the
Australian delegate as part of the larger Anglo-Saxon government effort to
say the forum basically shouldn't do much of anything except meet for a
couple of days per year, talk happy talk on safe topics, and then go home.
There's no logic to the assertion that WGs are by definition overly
bureaucratic, it's just a discursive ploy, like when ISOC et al were trying
to argue that Internet governance is a misnomer and doesn't exist.  I see no
reason not to challenge strategic misconstructions, particularly when they
don't comport with the empirical evidence; as I said, WGs are not
necessarily like this even within some otherwise bureaucratic orgs.

> 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.

Nor a pleasant one, it seems.  You fall out of bed today?  Please give some
advanced warning when you've unilaterally established a rule about what
kinds of comments are "welcome" so we can all avoid failing to meet your
requirements.

> 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.

See above.  I can weigh in but I can't lead draft.

> 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.

Ok, will try to think of a non-subtle formulation when there's something
into which to insert it.

Best,

Bill