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

[David Allen]

Amen, Bill.  _That_ looks like the task.

>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.