[Mmwg] outline of a structure for IGF

[Vittorio Bertola]

Il giorno mer, 18/01/2006 alle 17.01 -0500, Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> 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.

...but you're crossing my line, then, as I was dividing things into two
clear parts: voting and decision-making goes with the formal, closed
group of representatives, while policy discussion and consensus building
goes with the open plenary or open working groups.

It's not that I don't like the idea, but to me, the idea that you hold
votes among "the people who show up for meetings" (as you define the
Plenary) is a bit utopian, and also dangerous. It is open to capture
(just bring 50 people into the room... remember the Hammamet PrepCom)
and would risk making it impossible to have a clear direction, as
consensus might change according to the set of people who happen to show
up at a particular meeting (this was a problem in the IG Caucus as well,
according to our Chairs). And, in any case, I don't see governments
accepting the principle: I think it is reasonable to weigh stakeholders
and give governments one third of the weight (not less, not more).

So I would really recommend to keep the two things separate: if you
need / want formal approval of something, then you go through a well
defined, slowly changing, accountable, representative, formalized group
of leaders. But you absolutely need to keep the room open when the
actual discussion has to happen.

> 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.

(semantically, in my opinion it is still a Steering Group - such as the
IESG - rather than a Bureau - such as the [useless and ineffective] WSIS
Bureaus... I think that the word "Bureau" is in any case well suited to
irk everyone in the Internet community :-) )

> 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. 

Agree.

> 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. 

I think 11 is too small, remember that it was impossible to make the
WGIG less than 35-40, and still many people complained that they felt
excluded.

> 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.

About "proceeding reports": I do imagine the forum producing a
collection of documents, basically a policy equivalent of the RFC
series. It's not just minutes... So you could have, "IGF document 1:
Best practices for privacy protection in the use of Web cookies", and
"IGF document 2: Recommendations on anti-spam regulations" and so on.
This is the kind of documents that the leading group should approve (but
not discuss - discussion should happen in working groups, the leading
group should just rubberstamp or reject on some clear basis).

> 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

I think that this is more or less what I have in mind, but without
formal voting. Straw polls and quick shows of hand are ok, but if you
have an undefined group, you can't assume that you can measure consensus
other than by having a skilled Chair smell the wind and propose
something that can be broadly acceptable (otherwise the Chair knows that
he/she'll be kicked out at the first occasion).

I would also recommend that all actual policy discussion takes place in
(online) working groups. I don't see a Plenary meeting for two days and
discussing spam, human rights, privacy, interconnection costs,
cybercrime, development issues (2 hours per issue?) and doing anything
meaningful or effective. The Plenary should either be a sort of
equivalent of ICANN's Public Forum (well, how it was meant to be, not
how it is now) or a showcase to present what's going on in WGs, or
possibly both.

> 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.

Generally speaking, I agree - start with an interim group and, in the
meantime, ask them and the constituencies to work out and then implement
a final structure (sounds familiar, isn't it?).

But what's the "leftover WSIS structure" for "Tech/Academic"? And are
you suggesting that we move from three to four stakeholder groups?
(Apparently, for what I've seen on some lists, ISOC is going to push
this as one of their main objectives for the February meetings, and
possibly also propose themselves as the representative structure for
this stakeholder group.)

> 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.

I agree on the spirit, but in practice, I think it should be the WG (the
WG Chair) that gets rough consensus, and then the Plenary only reviews
the document, but does not try to edit it or discuss it in depth. And
eventually, the leading group approves it or sends it back to the WG
with some specific observations (and you might want some anti-deadlock
provisions). Also, WG Chairs should be appointed by the leading group
and be accountable to them (and through them to all stakeholders).

> Sounds like fun, eh? 

A lot :-)
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...