[Mmwg] Next Steps

[Milton Mueller]

I would agree with Bill Drake's suggestion that "priority issues" be left to the IG Caucus list. Why did you not send that message to the IGC list, Wolfgang? 

>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 3/15/2006 4:35 AM >>>
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