[Mmwg] IGF mechanism version 6.0 (less is more??)

[McTim]

On 1/27/06, Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I only have some short comments
>
> 1) I do see Bill's point about the gov's not being used to work online.
> However this was my first reaction before I read luc's and his post (and it
> is still my *probably unrealistic* opinion)why do working groups meet
> physically?

For the obvious advantages.

> It has obvious advantages to meet physically, but given the
> money and time constrains, a physical meeting excludes people and gives the
> ones who show up more power.

Not if NO decisions can be finalised in f2f meetings.  ALLdecisons are
made via the noline community.  People WILL meet at the IGF Plenary
meetings might as well make them formal meetings.

> 2) why should all working groups be required to use the same tools?

To keep costs down??

I'm not married to this one.

>
> 3)
> - Plenary votes on working group creation.
> - Plenary votes on WG leaders.
>
> I think I don't get it, does this mean WG's are created only once a year at
> the physical level?

No, this can be done online as well.

I would not like that idea. But anyways, I am not in
> favour of having the plenary vote on WG's and WG leaders. I think the WG's
> form themselves under 'to be defined' criteria (e.g. balance of
> stakeholders, clearly defined IGF format terms of reference), the
> secretariat publishes the application and only when there is 'protest' the
> plenary votes. In any case I think the WG's should agree on their leaders
> themselves.

So besides these nits, you find 6.o acceptable??

Anyone else?

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim