[Mmwg] Re: outline of a structure for IGF

[David Allen]

My cents.

--Levels, selecting leaders

As said originally, the two levels - proposed by Vittorio and given 
some detail (including WGs) by Milton - make possible the two 
opposites we pretty clearly need, AFAICS anyway:  open, together with 
structure.  Equally it seems the two must tie together, so that the 
leadership in the Bureau/Steering Group reflects the confidence of 
the Plenary.  Working out the details for Plenary to select the 
Bureau/SG (after the bootstrap) is thorny, but there is experience we 
can draw from.

Vittorio put some of this succinctly, as others have noted.

At 12:02 PM +0100 1/21/06
>This is why I think that having a clear decision making mechanism, 
>whatever it is, is of vital importance. But since I do not want to 
>overload the plenary and working groups with all the formalities and 
>accreditations that are necessary to that purpose, I would move that 
>to a separate body - that's the reason for proposing a leading group.

At 6:50 PM +0100 1/21/06
>[Selecting the leading group] might be [by] constituencies, it might 
>be nominations, it might be a number of different ways. The idea is 
>that there should be a direct relationship of trust and 
>accountability between Bureau members and stakeholder groups

Indeed, here is where trust must bind it seems clear, even when there 
is structure.

Luc Faubert has not drawn this overall conclusion, and there is other debate.

--Academics and science

Bill's two cents were valuable, for me anyway, a clear view of how 
this history knits together.  McTim makes some case, however, for A&S 
as a 4th stand-alone constituency.  (I have used Academics and 
Science.)

In my eye anyway, the UN taxonomy might just unfold into the future. 
A high-level, tripartite division - CS, PS, govs - gives only the 
most primitive traction, to mobilize societal parts.  To identify, so 
as to mobilize the main components in a society, means a little more 
detail.  We are not likely to do that, yet anyway; but we can have it 
in our mind's eye, as a prospective context for dealing with this 
first, further differentiation.  If A&S is set as an explicit 
constituent in an umbrella CS for instance, then that could at least 
open the possibility for other elements also to stand tall.  As said 
already, CS as it came together for WSIS did devolve into parts.

Within A&S, computer science professionals are a bright core of 
concern re IG.  As Bill alluded, there are other academic disciplines 
with a concern, also.  I believe more than one is even represented in 
our little group here.  By no means will views be homogenous, once we 
get serious about enabling an A&S.  Nor will any one extant 
organization aggregate all those views, I believe.  As usual, we will 
need some 'space' where they can all congregate.

Further, as noted earlier, A&S plays one of the special roles, most 
especially for ongoing innovation.  That then puts a special onus, to 
get this right - a place for A&S with conducive conditions.  Which 
gets to:

How much we push up against the political limits Bill describes, if 
we seek to acknowledge A&S more forthrightly, is one of our 
challenges.

David