[Mmwg] outline of a structure for IGF

[David Allen]

Perhaps this may engender wider comment.

Discussion so far brings to light a couple fairly clearly important choices.

First:  Is devolution of authority and work among the levels, 
Steering Group, Plenary, and Working Group.

a)  Is all the work done down at the atomic level, in the Working 
Group?  The attempt at WSIS (indeed at other such), for 200+ parties 
to have a plenary discussion on any subject, made clear the 
challenges thereto.  Yet, after some familiarization, it worked 
better than one might have thought.  Early on, there were mainly long 
laundry lists of points from most speakers, immediately forgotten. 
Later, the dialog took on some linearity.

(I will put my vote, for one of the better discussions, with the WGIG 
consultation [that I got to].)

Seems to me that there may be reason for work at more than one level, 
with draft (somehow defined) work done at WG, then further 
consideration on up. Where the work is done allocates the power. 
Power is in fixing the agenda and then thrashing out what will be 
seen by the group next to consider the topic.

b)  Where the work is done has something to say about the length of 
meetings.  There was value in the extended PrepCom format, once the 
speechifying ran its course.  Again, depends on where the work is 
done.

A second:  As I have said otherwise, seems like one of the lessons 
from WSIS is further detail for the (emerging) main UN taxonomy, CS, 
PS, and states.  The role played by academics/scientists has proved, 
certainly in the case of a policy with a technology component, to be 
determining.  Whether that is acknowledged as being 'in CS' or as on 
its own is an interesting question.  (And yes, I straddle boundaries 
... hopefully not too painfully ...)

The essence is twofold:  One, policy makers remain behind the 
eight-ball until they can understand a technology for which - 
naturally - they are not by predisposition prepared.  Teachers, in a 
good world, can hasten understanding.  Two, the academic and 
scientific side is (one of the) homes for the innovative spark that 
needs to be kept loose on the range.

Below, a few lesser.

Again, hopefully this will be the beginning of thoughts from several 
views, even conceivably further proposals.

David

At 3:30 PM +0100 1/19/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>(semantically, in my opinion it is still a Steering Group - such as 
>the IESG - rather than a Bureau

My own first response was something besides Bureau - have above stuck 
in Steering Group , as at least placeholder.

>I thi nk 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.

Again, that was my own inclination.  Nice to keep a reasonable upper 
bound, at the same time.

>the leading group should just rubberstamp or reject on some clear basis).


At 12:16 PM -0500 1/19/06, Milton Mueller wrote:
>False e xample. 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?

The memory of that day in Hammamet is vivid.

By packing the room, and with their chosen style of intervention, the 
locals achieved their aim:  The meeting was shut down and the steps 
they wanted to prevent did not see the light of (that) day.  (Until 
the next morning, after apparently the application of some serious 
leverage overnight.)