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

[William Drake]

Hi,

Amen, Milton.  If we come forward with recommendations that are divorced
from the realities of how governments work and envision the process, our
input will be summarily discarded and our status as a catalyst/partner with
useful ideas, which we've worked hard to establish over the past few years,
will be diminished.  I would bet real money that there will be big meatspace
annual meetings that go through and adopt recommendations and shared
understandings texts, there will be a bureau, and there will be a small
secretariat, per the Tunis Agenda.  To me the most unclear aspects pertain
to working groups and research capacity (internal or outsourced to scholars
and stakeholders) and the substantive focus, all of which the governments
have not really discussed seriously.  I would hope we could generate some
ideas on these scores that could plausibly fit into the above architecture.
If we cannot, it's not entirely obvious what the value-added would be.

Best,

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 Milton
> Mueller
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:12 AM
> To: LFaubert at conceptum.ca
> Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: RE: [Mmwg] IGF mechanism version 6.0 (less is more??)
>
>
>
> >>> "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert at conceptum.ca> 1/27/2006 11:18 AM >>>
> >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.
>
> The issue is not just "how" is voting done but _whether_ it
> should be done.
>
> I don't like 6.0 that much. I think there is no way around the
> need for a small Council/Bureau to take a lot of the heat off of
> the Plenary, so that it can actually have free-ranging
> discussions. I don't believe it is feasible, or desirable, to do
> away with the Plenary, either. WGs in my view have no point if
> not to feed things into a wide discussion.
>
> There is an unfortunate disconnect between this group, composed
> entirely of CS, and the other sectors. Whatever form the IGF
> takes, it will have to be acceptable to govts and PS. Govs in
> particular are not used to working in IETF style. Let's be aware of that.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>