[Mmwg] outline of a structure for IGF

[Vittorio Bertola]

Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> 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.

That's the point - the leading group should be selected by those who 
participate in the Plenary and working groups. Having them appointed by 
Annan is an interim method, but it is of course important that there is 
a strong link between the average sentiment in the Plenary and working 
groups and what the leading group decides, otherwise you'll just get 
deadlocked.

> 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.

Which is even more dangerous: what do you do if the Chair lets everyone 
talk, and then calls consensus on a minority point of view that happens 
to be the view of a few powerful governments or companies?

> 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.

No, that's definitely a wrong message. However, ideas matter in the 
Plenary and working groups, that work by consensus. The step to go 
through a more formalized and accountable entity is a check to avoid 
"capture of the consensus" by the Chairs, and also to avoid that 
different working groups go in opposite directions and adopt 
incompatible proposals.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...