[Mmwg] technology (code) defines the practice

Sun Jan 29 19:13:47 GMT 2006

Hi,

As Lessig and others have assessed, on the net the features of the software
pretty much define 'how the game is played'. I am aware of what Bill said
about the problem of getting people to come and play with us using the
innovative political practices made possible in the socio-technological
space called internet. But, even though most of the technology enabled
features I list below need some 'warm up' and understanding, I believe that
people are willing to learn if the advantages and added value can be
explained & proven.

I believe that the topics listed below might be one part of what has been
raised under 'what civil society can contribute to the process':

- Information Architecture - In order to understand, navigate and
participate in the IG policy space, IMHO, it would be very useful to develop
and agree on a 'topic map', which organises and visualises the
discourse-space. This architecture might develop from an instrument to
'agree on the political geography of Internet Governance', to become the
thematic navigational backbone of the forum and might finally serve as basis
for an ontology to enable semantic web service allowing participants of the
forum to really exploit the future power of the net.

- Quality Assurance through a Reputation System - The high quality in
scientific journals is guaranteed through peer-review. Ebay depends (among
other things) heavily on the trust created through its member profiles and
especially the feedback ratings. These features could be transposed in the
IGF context and I believe they could be instrumental to ensuring 'freedom of
expression' (inclusiveness) while taming the information overload by
enabling 'networks of trust' and quality assurance.
	Obviously usability and feasibility are two main points, so I would
envision user accounts (with profiles) + a rating/voting possibility at the
bottom of each info block. E voila, the system could be setup to allow for
public and personalised collaborative peer-review --> the personal
reputation build up by receiving ratings for posts might also be
instrumentalized. 
	Let me quote Raymond (1999:170) at this point who has put it: "The
open source peer review is the only scalable method for achieving high
reliability and quality". The IGF could be the sourceforge equivalent for
policies.

- Document types (there can be more variety then just reports -->e.g.
Request for Comments come to mind, but I am also thinking about e.g.
versioning of eternally 'work in progress' documents)

- Usability standards (regarding information and interface) 

Lastly let me state, that the freedom for IGF related work to be happening
in a free choice of working tools and practice (as long as principles of
practice and standards of outcome are met), to me, seems crucial to ensure
innovation and continuous evolution (change management). A feature that most
international institutions lack.   

fraternal regards,
Max

PS: I am a young scholar in the midst of my phd research, as such I am
constantly urged to quote and backup. The deliberation and discourse happing
on this list is not theoretic but a pragmatic one and as such, there is no
need for scientific backup, but I would appreciate if - in case a study,
article, etc. comes to mind - people would backup their arguments. 

This, by the way, highlights very effectively the importance of open access.
If, in a political/practical list, reference is made to scientific work,
which elaborates on and arguments made, it is not acceptable to create
information disparity and effectively exclude participants without access to
mostly expensive scientific publications. 

References:
Raymond, Eric (1999) The Cathedral and the Bazzar: Musing on Linux and Open
Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly

-----Original Message-----
From: mmwg-bounces+maxsenges=gmail.com at wsis-cs.org
[mailto:mmwg-bounces+maxsenges=gmail.com at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette
Hofmann
Sent: sábado, 28 de enero de 2006 15:21
To: William Drake
Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [Mmwg] IGF mechanism version 6.0 (less is more??)

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