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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi,

both Milton's and Bill's version make sense to me. Whether or not 
traditional intergouvernemental rules and rituals will apply may depend 
on the political weight eventually attributed to the forum. My sense is 
that governments don't know yet if the forum will become something 
important. Not least because there is no agreement on this question. The 
forum could thus start with a rather informal framework and adopt more 
more UN style rules over time.

One thing seems to be clear: if the plenary assumes decision making 
capacity, the voting right will be limited to governments. We would then 
need to focus on working groups and similar processes to have some impact.
jeanette

William Drake wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg