[Mmwg] co-chair suggestion

[William Drake]

Hi,

This seems like a healthy outcome, competitive elections are always
preferable, including when there's multiple good choices.  Whatever the
outcome, the process is better off.  Thanks to David for accepting and to
Ian for considering it.  Would candidate vision statements or something be
helpful to facilitate the voting?

David's certainly right about the short time frame.  This is compounded by
the difficulty of asynchronously debating particular issues in the abstract,
without complete texts covering all issues in front of us.  At least in my
multitasked stupor, it gets hard to remember on the tenth go around of a
thread on plenary voting or whatever what the total picture is, on what
range of points are how many people in agreement or disagreement.

I hate to sound like a broken record, particularly since this never worked
on the caucus list, but could we maybe put the varying versions on a wiki or
something so we can keep track of what we're talking about and who's agreed
on what more easily?

Cheers,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmwg-bounces+drake=hei.unige.ch at wsis-cs.org
> [mailto:mmwg-bounces+drake=hei.unige.ch at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of David
> Allen
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:00 PM
> To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: RE: [Mmwg] co-chair suggestion
>
>
> Initially, when approached offlist about the possibility by another
> in the group, I declined.  This has given me reason to reconsider.  I
> accept the nomination, hoping the process helps to reach a good
> document for the consultations.
>
> Whichever pair takes on this task, I note our time frame as a working
> group.  From the day the election completes, we will have just nine
> days to the beginning of the Malta work, eleven days if we count to
> the end of that conference.  That is only a week and a half.
> Consultations begin in Geneva four days later.  That is a (quite)
> compressed time frame, and the work to be done could not be more
> important, when we care about Internet governance.
>
> Again regardless of the persons guiding the process, all hands will
> be needed on deck.  Smooth working among us will be the essence.
> Fortunately we already have good work in hand, on our way to
> recommendations that can make IGF what it needs to be.
>
> David
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >It's notable that none of the people who were most active in the
> >caucus from 2003-2005---e.g. generating ideas on the list, drafting
> >texts, speaking and lobbying in the prepcoms---seems to want to take
> >on the heavy lifting of co-coordinating either the caucus or the
> >mmwg in 2006. I guess there's a good deal of burn-out and too
> >busy-ness going around; not the best timing, with governments having
> >created the IGF we called for and expecting us to contribute, but
> >what can you do. At least we have a couple of willing victims ready
> >to step up here in Robert and Jacky; on the caucus list, Jeanette's
> >call for nominations was met with crystal silence.
> >
> >That said, I'd like to throw a couple more names into the
> >pool---folks who have made a lot of interesting contributions on the
> >lists (I just looked at the mmwg and caucus archives) and have shown
> >a propensity to carefully parse, contrast and blend various peoples'
> >positions, which is what's really needed in this particular role.
> >And anyway, I don't think CS should follow politburo procedures and
> >have non-competitive elections.
> >
> >So I'd like to nominate the following, we'll see if they say no too:
> >
> >*David Allen
> >*Ian Peter
> >
> >By the way, in the caucus we have coordinators, and I'd assumed that
> >would be the case here too. Did we decide at some point to have
> >chairs instead in the mmwg, or is this thread just mis-labled?
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>