[Mmwg] Reviewing the discussions

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Taran Rampersad <cnd at knowprose.com> 1/23/2006 5:02 AM >>>
>Please tell me that you are willing to help form an 
>idea that is not completely your own.

Absolutely. I am willing. I just haven't seen the discussion focus on specific problems with my proposal and propose specific alternatives that fix the problems. 

I honestly don't care if your comments are critical of what I am proposing. My problem is that I have no idea what you are criticizing or what alternative you are supporting.

I am beginning to side with Max Senges that the discussion needs to be structured. Let me begin by recounting the discussion as I have seen it. Maybe that can serve as a framework of clarification.

1. Luc Faubert proposes stiff organizational accreditation standards. This idea seems to have very little support. Most want a more open group.

2. There is some discussion of whether individuals should be accedited as "experts."  This idea has some support but is strongly criticized by others. Discussion has no clear direction.

3. I proposed a IGF composed of the following parts:
 - Chair
 - Secretariat
 - Plenary
 - Bureau
 - Working Groups

Details of how they interact are described. I sense some support for the idea that there should be working groups, that they should be relatively easy to form, and that they should drive the agenda. 

Bill Drake and McTim get into a debate about the Academic and Technical representation on the Bureau. 

There is some debate about the composition and powers of the Plenary. Here is where things get confusing. Vittorio does not like the idea that the Plenary-Chair interaction approves reports. But he proposes no concrete modifications, he only makes vague references to dividing the plenary by sector. It is not clear from his comments what powers he wants the plenary to have. It is not clear from his comments who should be on the Bureau or how they get there.

4. Luc proposes the "5.0" mechanism.
He takes on the WG concept, rejects the idea of a Bureau, and proposes a very different plenary composition. WGs get approved by the Secretariat instead of the Bureau. WG products are voted up or down by the Plenary. To participate in Plenary, orgs must go through a vote in the plenary. All other acts of the IGF are voted on in the Plenary.

While I do not agree with many aspects of Luc's proposal, at least he has made a concrete proposal. It is clear where his proposal differs from mine. This I respect. This is the level of discourse we need to have. I withhold criticism of Luc's proposal for now, in favor of structuring the discourse.

Here then are the key topics:

A. Do we need a Bureau or not? 
B. Is Plenary open to individuals or restricted to accredited organizations? Either way, what are the accreditation procedures?
C. How do WGs get approved? How do they operate?

If we can at least divide discussion as A, B and C we might make some progress.