[Mmwg] outline of a structure for IGF

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 1/19/2006 9:30 AM >>>
>...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.

As I explained, a rigid division is not viable. The open process becomes disconnected from the closed one and all power-mongering politics converges on the closed group, which becomes captured. Activities must be distributed across open and closed. You will not get people to participate in the open process if they are just noisemakers and someone else makes all the real decisions in a back room. And they don't even have any say over who those people are.

>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. 

First, a correction: there are no "votes" in the Plenary. That was a mis-statement on my part. Actually it is a discussion/consensus call by the Chair model. But yes, the discussion, and thus the sense of who supports what, will shift depending on who shows up. We call that "voting with your feet." 

>It is open to capture (just bring 50 people into the room... 
>remember the Hammamet PrepCom) 

False example. 50 people were brought into a room where there was no voting, no established rules of procedures, no formal structures. That was the problem - not the fact that 50 people came in. 

False example on another account: tell me what bringing 50 people into a room would accomplish in the proposed IGF model? It could not create a working group (that has to be approved by the Bureau). It could not elect the Chai (that is also done by the Bureau)r. It could not appoint people to the Bureau (that is done by external structures). If they were physically disruptive they could be ejected under this model. 

All that would happen is that 50 people would chant the same "line" about a particular issue or report. But the other 100 people in the room could disagree with them. The Chair could see that there was not consensus and nothing would happen. 

>And, in any case, I don't see governments
>accepting the principle: 

You are not a government Vittorio. We can let them speak for themselves. Anyway the issue is whether it is a good model, not who will accept it at this point.

>I think it is reasonable to weigh stakeholders
>and give governments one third of the weight (not less, not more).

Now it's you who are talking about voting at Plenaries. And you are talking about rigidly dividing every participant up into an artificial category (are you CS or PS, for example?) and weghting the categories. That's a recipe for "capture." Any idiot could figure out in a week how to line up 30 or 40 stooges presenting themselves as CS, PS or govts and control votes. And by weighting "votes" you are sending a message that ideas don't matter, power does.