[Mmwg] Combining models

[David Allen]

At 12:28 PM +0100 1/18/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Y ou are right, that's my idea. In any case, the forum needs some 
>leadership, and civil society is (I think) well placed to provide a 
>part of it, and thus to ensure that the forum deals with the issues 
>that we want.
>
>I think that not having a formalized leadership mechanism would be 
>worse, it would in fact leave things completely open to lobbying 
>efforts and closed governmental negotiations, I think it's a 
>development in which we could only lose.
>
>An example - sooner or later, the IGF might have to decide whether 
>to establish a working group on, say, privacy, or IPR; and also, to 
>release results and recommendations coming out of these working 
>groups. This kind of crucial decisions needs to be taken in 
>accountable ways.
>
>Working groups should be open, much like the IETF WGs or any online 
>working group... but again, even if you can hope to have a smart and 
>facilitating Chair that can honestly call consensus rather than 
>tamper with it, we did see how hard it is to reach and measure 
>consensus on substantial issues without any kind of formal 
>structure. Just imagine when you put the other stakeholders in the 
>same box.

Indeed.

>
>But of course - and Milton is right about this - the details of how 
>this leadership is selected can dramatically change the result.
>
>I do not have clear solutions to that. Every mechanism that has been 
>tried did not work fully - neither global online elections, nor the 
>two-level system based on accredited organizations, nor nominating 
>committees. Initially, I think we should trust Kofi Annan to pick a 
>good mix; in any case, there's possibly the time for civil society 
>to make suggestions, but certainly not to build a formal structure 
>to select representatives. Then... I think that the ball will be in 
>our field.
>
>I'm not sure about how the selection of IESG members works; I guess 
>there's a NomCom, but then the issue becomes, who selects the NomCom 
>members? In the end, I'm starting to wonder whether trusting a few 
>well respected people to make a choice isn't better than trying to 
>incapsulate a hugely fragmented and diverse world, such as civil 
>society, into complex formal structures.

It looks like we have the UN SGs picks for the initial leadership - 
the bootstrap is in hand in other words.  (As said earlier, my sense 
is that trust will figure in, both when open and when structured.)

Now we need, it seems, more concrete possibilities on deck, for 
comment, and perhaps then further proposals with the ideas generated. 
Of just the sort that Milton has now put forward.  He seems 
faithfully to have given shape to your model, with both open and 
structured/representative elements.

I hope now we can see some comment, and ideas, from several different 
views. We have just a few weeks to gel suggestions for the 
consultation.

David