[Mmwg] Reviewing the discussions

[Luc Faubert]

I agree with Milton's account of what's been happening here.

Maybe it's because of the deviant way my brain works, but I find it difficult to discuss the mechanism's features separately because they interact with each other. Take away something somewhere and you have to adjust somewhere else. Even the very succinct 3 topics Milton proposes in his last post I find difficult to tackle independently.

I am more comfortable discussing whole models such as Milton's and mine, but I also find it helpful to have people poke at specific aspects of models to get an idea of the degree of support they have and to get news ideas. So everybody's input is important--of course; it's just that at some point we must aggregate ideas in a complete model.

I think at this point we could move forward more elegantly with chairs who have everybody's respect and can give direction to our work.

I also think it would be a shame if we didn't agree on something in time for Geneva--and ideally, before Malta.

Onward!


- Luc Faubert
ISOC Québec
 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmwg-bounces+lfaubert=conceptum.ca at wsis-cs.org 
> [mailto:mmwg-bounces+lfaubert=conceptum.ca at wsis-cs.org] On 
> Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: 23 janvier 2006 15:21
> To: cnd at knowprose.com; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: [Mmwg] Reviewing the discussions
> 
> >>> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>