[Mmwg] March item to work on

Sun Mar 12 20:07:34 GMT 2006

Luc,

Since the examples you give pertaining to 'DGIGs' fall within the domain of
what I was talking about, I obviously can't disagree with this formulation.
What you'd said previously sounded broader to me.  If we approach from the
standpoint of addressing just those bits pertaining to MS interaction and
treatment, foregrounding groups/processes beyond the annual meeting, rather
than trying for a complete model of the IGF's administrative organization
and operations, we could make a real contribution before a potential late
May PC meeting/consultation.

Cheers,

BD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert at conceptum.ca]
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 8:22 PM
> To: William Drake; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; jam at jacquelinemorris.com;
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: RE: [Mmwg] March item to work on
>
>
> Bill, I don't see that our views differ that much. I agree with
> all you have said except the part on leaving out some modalities.
>
> The risk in proposing something less than a whole working model
> is that it leaves areas open to interpretation. If we leave to
> others the responsibility of defining these loose ends, they may
> come up with solutions that are incompatible with what we had
> envisaged but not defined. As an example, suppose we define how
> DGIGs operate but not how their output is then handled by other
> IGF components. Suppose then that the UN crowd decides the
> Secratariat has the right to rule out DGIG reports from the
> Plenary debate.
>
> I agree with you that some modalities will be decided by the UN
> crowd, but I think that if we propose *something*, then we at
> least have a chance of influencing the outcome. And we may find
> that our cost of coming up with a few extra rules concerning
> interaction of the Secretariat and PC with other IGF entities
> such as the DGIGs and the Plenary may not be that high.
>
> - Luc Faubert
> ISOC Québec
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> > Sent: 12 mars 2006 13:48
> > To: Luc Faubert; Wolfgang Kleinwächter;
> > jam at jacquelinemorris.com; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> > Subject: RE: [Mmwg] March item to work on
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>