[Mmwg] My critique of Luc's proposal

[Milton Mueller]

Here is my analysis and critique of Luc's proposal. In a subsequent message, I will try to modify the proposal I sent in ways that might accommodate the two.

There are, in my opinion, three major flaws in Faubert's proposal. 

1) It concentrates too much power in the Secretariat, which is just an appointed individual with no direct representation of stakeholders. 
2) It prevents individuals from participating in the Plenary. 
3) Its heavy reliance on Plenary voting. This is the biggest problem. This would be too cumbersome administratively, and simply would not work in a UN context, where voting is considered a sign of failure and is strenuously avoided. In particular, the idea that organizational accreditations would have to be ALL voted on by the Plenary is just not viable; it would eat up all its time and focus all its energies on attempts to control who can participate. It is a really bad idea to have Plenary votes determine who gets accredited. Keep in mind the precedent of the WSIS Plenary vote on Human Rights in China's accreditation. That was ONE organization. Want to multiply that by 100? 

In effect, in order to get rid of the Bureau, Luc has loaded the both the Plenary and the Secretariat with too much voting and administrative action. This would destroy the ability of the Plenary to serve as a deliberative, discussion forum. The Plenary would become more like a legislature, with organized factions striving for a 2/3 majority rather than listening and discussing. 

I have to say I don't much like the idea of having a Bureau myself, but it is the best solution to the need for some kind of "representative" decision making. 

Also, let me agree with and echo these thoughts of Luc:

>>> "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert at conceptum.ca> 1/20/2006 1:47 PM >>>
>There are many people here who have not posted yet and our process would benefit from their input.
 
--MM