[Mmwg] Next Steps

[Guillaume CHENEVIERE]

It might be worthwhile to add among priorities
IG and Public Domain 
meaning free access for all to information and culture through the Internet
Guillaume Chenevière (comunica-ch)


-----Original Message-----
From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Sent: mercredi, 15. mars 2006 10:35
To: Milton Mueller; LFaubert at conceptum.ca; drake at hei.unige.ch;
jam at jacquelinemorris.com; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [Mmwg] Next Steps

Dear list,
 
yes here we have full consensus with regard to the "Methodology". We agree
that the IGF Committtee will need some subsidary groups, organized bottom up
as specific discussion groups, open to everybody and linked (in a formal or
informal way) to the IGF Committee and to guarantee that the IGF is not a
(singular annual) "project" but a (multiple permanent) "process". What we
have to do here is to define a number of "criteria" for the launch and the
recognition of a "Discussion Group on Internet Governance" (DGIG) and
relevant procedural aspects. 
 
But there is no need to be in a hurry. As Bill has said, the IGF Committee
will define its own rules of procedure and working methods, including
procedures for sub-groups etc. But I agree also with Luc that we can produce
a "Food for Thought" paper. Timing is here important. We should not do the
second step before the first one. My expectation is that the IGF Committee
will be launched end of April and will meet for the first time in May. If we
have such a paper in May would be okay.  
 
The first step is to identify the priority issues. Here the dateline is
March, 31, 2006. Jackie and I have asked several times for your "Top Three"
but the response was rather low so far. I have on my list at the moment the
following six "prirority issues"
 
* IG & Development
* IG & Human Rights
* IG & Critical Ressources (Root, DNS, IPAddresses)
* IG & Cybersecurity
* IG & Spam
* IG & Multiligualism
 
We have to send a statement with regard to the "priority issues" until
March, 31, 2006. We can certainly use this opportunity to add some initial
ideas for a "Working Method", based on "bottom up, inclusive and transparent
procedures". But, as I said above, in our public statetment we should not be
too specific at this stage. 
 
On the other hand, in our internal discussuon we should move ahead. Avri´s
proposal to look deeper into the IETF practices makes sense. The way of
making a RFC is an inspiring model. Could we develop something equivalent to
an IETF-RFC, probably a IGF-RCR (Rough Consensus Recommendation)?
 
Best
 
Jackie & Wolf
 
   

________________________________

Von: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu]
Gesendet: Mi 15.03.2006 00:15
An: LFaubert at conceptum.ca; drake at hei.unige.ch; jam at jacquelinemorris.com;
Wolfgang Kleinwächter; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Betreff: RE: [Mmwg] March item to work on



>>> "William Drake" <drake at hei.unige.ch> 3/12/2006 1:47 PM >>>
>Bottom line, [snip]  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,

Amen. I agree completely. I think Luc was making the same point. So, let's
do it.





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