[Mmwg] March item to work on

[William Drake]

Hi Luc,

I have a very different view I guess.  On the one hand, I don't think it's
really necessary for us to define a complete organizational model for the
IGF that specifies how the secretariat would be organized and relate to
other elements etc.  The UN will make those determinations in accordance
with a lot of intra-organizational considerations (budgetary and authority
lines, negotiations with key governments and potential funders, etc) to
which we won't be that privy.  Our input on such matters may be noted, but
it will not be determining.

On the other hand, how bottom-up MS working groups etc. might be formed,
recognized, and provide inputs to the process is actually pretty pressing.
I talked with Markus on the way to Paris for the OECD's Future of the
Internet meeting and he noted the obvious---we're the only ones thinking
about this so far.  Not surprising; as was evident at the Geneva
consultation, the industrialized country governments are mostly thinking of
the IGF as a safe annual meeting.  Sure, some initiatives might be launched
or meetings organized *separately* as unofficial preparatory efforts by
particular groupings, but that's probably as far as they're interested in
going toward the IGF being an ongoing process, as we've advocated.  I don't
think they're eager to see a layered model in which things are done
officially under an IGF umbrella, inter alia because they'd feel compelled
to allocate scare energies toward participating in and trying to control
such things, and organizing the basic institutional machinery and a meeting
is enough work already.

Bottom line, this is potentially our most unique contribution and
value-added, and hence our most high-yield place to concentrate our own
scare energies.  Unless CS pushes the idea of bottom-up MS groupings able to
tackle particular issues, gets that built into the framework, and then
proposes/initiates some, there probably won't be any.    To me, this would
mean that the potential opportunity represented by the IGF has been largely
missed.  We will not be able to effectively push global public interest
considerations or reforms of extant governance mechanisms, or even
collective learning and capacity building, solely within the constraints of
a four day, six hundred person MS meeting held once a year, it just won't
happen.  WGs or DGIGs whatever you want to call them (and the wisdom of
creating special language and acronyms has been raised) are really the only
way we're going to any real, sustained, intensive MS dialogue that is of
much value.  As such, I would advocate focusing our energies on this, rather
than trying to tackle the much broader task of mapping out for the UN how to
organize its basic institutional machinery, for which we are anyway ill
equipped.

Best,

Bill




> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org]On
> Behalf Of Luc Faubert
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 6:54 PM
> To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter; jam at jacquelinemorris.com; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: RE: [Mmwg] March item to work on
>
>
> Wolfgang,
>
> Launching DGIGs is an initiative we have proposed in our latest
> statement. I wouldn't say this qualifies as a working model.
>
> Although we now have some of the building blocks of a working
> model (Secratariat, PC, DGIGs) I still don't see the rules that
> will enable all of these blocks to work together. We can either
> let the Program Committee work them out alone or try to be
> proactive and come up with our set of rules (including, as you
> propose, a DGIG charter) that we can then submit to the PC as
> food for thought.
>
> My point is that a lot remains to be done in defining how the IGF
> will work. At this point we're certainly one of the groups that
> has given it the most thought. Why not continue and propose a
> complete model?
>
> -Luc Faubert
> ISOC Québec
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> > Sent: 12 mars 2006 12:20
> > To: Luc Faubert; jam at jacquelinemorris.com; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> > Subject: AW: [Mmwg] March item to work on
> >
> > Luc,
> >
> > one "working model" we have proposed was to launch bottom up
> > discussion groups (DGIGs).
> > When we prepare our statement for the subjects - March 31 -
> > we could be more specific and propose already some items for
> > discussion. Probably it would be helüpful to draft a light
> > weight charter for a DGIG
> >
> > wolfgang
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Luc Faubert
> > Gesendet: So 12.03.2006 18:12
> > An: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> > Betreff: RE: [Mmwg] March item to work on
> >
> >
> > My understanding was that we agreed to let the Governance
> > Caucus list deal with the themes issue and that the MMWG list
> > would concentrate on IGF modalities.
> >
> > As I have stated earlier, our latest submission on the
> > composition of the Program Committee leaves many aspects of
> > the IGF working model unresolved. The IGF is still without a
> > complete working model that everybody agrees on. Isn't that
> > where this list could contribute something useful? Come up
> > with a well thought out working model that we could propose
> > to the Program Committee.
> >
> > If that's not what we should be working on, what are we here for?
> >
> > - Luc Faubert
> > ISOC Québec
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > 	From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org
> > [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris
> > 	Sent: 9 mars 2006 12:11
> > 	To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> > 	Subject: [Mmwg] March item to work on
> >
> >
> > 	Hi everyone
> > 	Back again after the Carnival, and still alive!
> >
> > 	We have the March 31 deadline from Nitin re the topics
> > for the first IGF -
> >
> > 	"Public policy issues to be discussed at the first
> > meeting of the IGF.
> > 	Please let us know your top three choices and give a
> > short explanation on the reasons for your choices by 31 March 2006. "
> >
> > 	We know that some  would like the first issues to be
> > relatively non-controversial, like spam and such. Others are
> > more interested in the development aspects - access and cost,
> > availability etc. If the members of this group can post their
> > top 3 to the list, with reasons, we can work to condense and
> > finalise a submission soon (before many head to Wellington)
> >
> > 	Looking forward to the submissions
> > 	--
> > 	Jacqueline Morris
> > 	www.carnivalondenet.com
> > 	T&T Music and videos online
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>