[Mmwg] outline of a structure for IGF

[Max Senges]

Hello all, Milton,

As we all know, time is very tight. Thus I suggest to start to work on a
concrete document.

I guess it would be good, if we agreed on the structure/headings before we
go into language. Some of the following points are not directly within the
mission of this WG, but I included them as some were raised by Milton and
others are simply logical to include:

IGF Bureau
	Responsibility of the Bureau --> Mandate (Mission & Decision)
 	Composition of members
	Selection of the chair and members
		
IGF Plenary
	Mandate (Mission & Decision) 
	Participation & Accreditation 

	
IGF Workingmethods (Processes)
 Principles (Inclusiveness, Free speech, etc.)
 Process Architecture (& Discourse Guidelines)	
	Agenda Setting
	Discussion (Working Group) Assignments
		Participation & Accreditation 
	Open Structure for discourse/deliberation conduct
		Identification of relevant facts, concepts,...
		Disclosure and definition of positions/perspective
		Identification of conflicts and contradictions
		Consider & discuss (ethical) legitimisation of arguments 
		Consensus Finding & practical Recommendations	

If there is rough consensus that Milton's text goes in the right direction,
I would suggest we take it as a starting point -->
http://mmwg.wikicities.com/wiki/IGF_Structure_Outline 

Max 


-----Original Message-----
From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Milton Mueller
Sent: miércoles, 18 de enero de 2006 23:01
To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [Mmwg] outline of a structure for IGF

The idea here is to exploit the complementarities of open and closed
structures while employing checks and balances among them. I'm not wedded to
any detail, but am very strongly committed to the idea that WG proposals can
come from anyone and, if created, must be voted on by open plenaries. 

There are three basic parts to the IGF: A Plenary (the open meetings), a
Bureau (a small, closed quasi-representational decision making structure), a
Secretariat with a Chair.

Chair and Secretariat
UN SG appoints an initial Chair (Desai), and a Secretariat (Kummer), and
(with widespread consultation) the initial members of a Bureau. Chair
presides over meetings. Agenda of meetings is not pulled out of the air via
private discussions among the Chair & Secretariat, but is driven by WG
proposals and products. 

Bureau 
The IGF Bureau is a Council of 11 people, with the following composition:
 - 4 representatives of governments
 - 2 Private Sector
 - 2 Civil Society
 - 2 Academic and Technical
 - The IGF Chair
Chief of Secretariat participates but is nonvoting. 

The Bureau makes the following decisions:
 - Elects IGF Chair (after end of term of initial appointment of chair by UN
SG)
 - Sets agenda for Plenary meetings jointly with Secretariat, but has final
authority
 - Reviews and approves Proceedings reports submitted by Secretariat
 - After a positive vote in the Plenary, votes up or down applications for
forming working groups by simple majority.

The Plenary 
The Plenary is simply the people who show up for meetings. They have to be
registered (perhaps we want to use a stronger word "accredited," but leave
that issue aside for later). Physical meetings should always be supplemented
by online tools that permit registered attendees to participate on the
Internet. They all have the same status with respect to right to speak, etc.
The Plenary has the following decisions:

- Deliberates and discusses guided by Agenda and Chair
- Reviews, discusses and approves/refuses to approve reports of working
groups. Based on "rough consensus" called by Chair after sufficient
deliberation

Secretariat decisions
 - Receives and processes applications for working groups
 - Sets agenda for Plenary meetings jointly with Bureau 
 - Prepares Proceedings report
 - Administers web site and public communications of IGF
 - Handles logistics of IGF online and physical meetings

Big question: How to get people on the Bureau after the initial appointment
period? Suggestion: for CS, PS and Tech/Academic, use leftover WSIS
structures. They are given an interval to formalize their procedures and
their Bureau reps are selected by themselves. Governments can use the UN
General Assembly or some other procedure.

Working Groups
Let's not forget the purpose of the forum. It is summarized in para 72 of
the WSIS Agenda. The purpose is to foster deliberation and discussion of
Internet policy problems. I suggest that this activity be driven by topical
working groups and their reports. Any registered/accredited
organization/individual can propose to create one. There could be different
types, each with different approval hoops to jump through, but let's not get
into that level of detail yet.  So the Secretariat develops a template
setting out the requirements to create a WG on a topic or problem, people
involved submit applications to create one, Applications must be approved by
a Bureau vote. Majority? One third? Two thirds? If it approves, the Bureau
appoints a facilitator (or 3, one from each stakeholder group?), and anyone
can join it. When it comes up with a report, it goes before the plenary.
Plenary debates and discusses it, Chair calls a rough consensus on it, or
sends it back to the group to make changes. Eventually it is published (or
not, if it never gets rough consensus.

Sounds like fun, eh? 

This structure was designed to balance the powers of the plenary,
chair/secretariat and bureau. I may have overlooked some things (many
things) so look forward to comments.

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