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

[Luc Faubert]

McTim and all,
 
I'm for V 6.0, but I see 3 things about it that I think need more work:
 
1. Plenary voting
6.0 still requires voting by plenary (on WG resolutions, WG leaders and WG creation). How is voting done? See next point for potential solution.
 
2. Plenary vs WG composition
In 6.0, both the Plenary and WGs are open to all, so what's the difference between them? The Plenary becomes an instance of a WG specialized in discussing resolutions and voting. In this case, again, why do we need the Plenary if we agree that rough consensus, as in Milton's model, can be used instead of voting?
 
3. WG annual physical meeting
Don't know. Is it really necessary? As many have noted, it makes participation by all more costly. If we eliminate the Plenary however, they are required, and then we mutliply the number of annual meetings for those participating in multiple WGs.
 
+++
On some points discussed recently:
 
Government participation in WGs
Bill, I understand what you're saying about the culture shock for gov reps with regards to them participating online in WGs. However, how are we ever going to achieve "full and equal participation by all stakeholders" if govs don't work in WGs? If WGs are only populated by CS types, I don't see how any of the models we're talking about can work. Gov reps participation in WGs is essential. If WGs produce the final text of IGF resolutions, I think they *will* participate.
 
Uniformity of tools used in IGF
I think it is very important that we use the same tools in all WGs. Many people will participate in multiple WGs. They shouldn't have to learn a different tool for each. IGF's structure must be open, but some things must be managed centrally. I think this is one.
 
Bureau
Where are others on the Bureau issue when considering V 6.0 which doesn't have one?
 
+++
On some points not discussed yet:
 
WG size
How many people do we expect in the most popular WGs? Is it realistic to have WGs work online with, say, 400 active participants?
 
Language
Nobody has objected to the requirement of using English only for online work. Maybe I'm not optimistic enough, but I find this surprising. Maybe we're too uniform a group? Although in the UN many gov reps choose EN for documents even though their national language is not EN and is "one of the 6", we may get more opposition if they have to work online in EN. OTOH I don't see how we can realistically provide online multilingual support in realtime.
 
 
- Luc Faubert
ISOC Québec
 
 
________________________________

From: mmwg-bounces+lfaubert=conceptum.ca at wsis-cs.org on behalf of McTim
Sent: Thu 2006-01-26 13:03
To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [Mmwg] IGF mechanism version 6.0 (less is more??)



Hi Luc, et. al.,

I've stripped down your proposal to it's bare bones, and tried to
remove bits that have been objected to by folk.  Any takers?


Plenary
- Composed of entities, people, etc
- Discusses (but cannot change) a resolution supplied by working
groups and adopts them (or not) as IGF recommendations.
- Expected to conduct its business online whenever possible. Online
communications will be in English (due to the costs that translating
all email would entail).
- One yearly physical meeting
- All entities, people, etc., have equal speaking rights.
- Interpretation is available in the 6 UN languages for physical meetings.

Working groups
- Open to all (including all plenary entities).
- They do their business online and meet physically annually.
- Their job is to agree on recommendations that are reported to the
plenary, and to the Internet Community at large
- Working group Chairs call rough consensus.
- Because working groups must be global by nature, their working
language is English.
- All resolutions submitted to the plenary must be made available in
all UN languages.
- All working groups use the same online tools.


+++  Procedures

Bootstrap loader
1. Interim Chair is Nitin Desai and interim Secretariat is Markus Kummer.
2. After an open call for nominations, Chair and Secretariat are
elected for a 2-year term. Both can be reelected for any number of
terms.


Working group creation
- Proposals for working groups are submitted to Chair/Secretariat by
interested parties along with their suggestions for co-leaders.
- An open call for WG leader nominations is issued by Secretariat.
- Chair-Secretariat can veto creation of ill-defined working groups
(irrelevant to IGF mandate, unrealistic scope, and scope overlap with
existing WGs).
- Plenary votes on working group creation.
- Plenary votes on WG leaders.

Default working group
- A working group on procedural issues is created by default.
- Its leaders are the Chair and the Secretariat.
- It is responsible for:
   - changes to IGF mechanism,
   - setting the agenda,
   - outline of meeting logistics,
   - software tools to be used by IGF.

Chair
- Presides over meetings.
- Reviews and approves proceedings reports submitted by Secretariat.

Secretariat
- Prepares Proceedings report.
- Administers web site and public communications of IGF.
- Handles logistics of IGF online and physical meetings.
- Receives nominations.
- Receives applications for the creation of working groups.




--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
_______________________________________________
mmwg mailing list
mmwg at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060127/1332b4dd/attachment.html