<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Mechanism proposition</title></head><body>
<div>May I suggest a place to anchor our organization design
question: the task or mission. How do we get put together,
so we get there?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Deliberation is the explicit task. Still, it is widely
commented, off-the-record but nonetheless, how this may one day segue
into action. So our question is how best to underpin
deliberation. But future action doesn't disappear entirely from
the radar screen - if entirely submerged now.</div>
<div><br>
One thorny dilemma for the CS side is whether some form of
representation, beyond one-person-one-voice. We know how
important is 'openness,' the CS trademark. But Bill shows us
how, in practical terms, particularly some DCs remain uncomfortable
without a measure of discipline too.<br>
<br>
Beyond ICANN and the IETF (the latter a particularly salutary example,
for me anyway) the CS experience, over the WSIS years, may be
informative. CS brings its trademark openness. Yet for
WSIS, CS also divided into representative caucuses. Membership
was fluid, to give what was surely vital flexibility. Yet even
for CS there were conceptual baskets by which some discipline and
forms of representation emerged. Equally, when it was time to
present, there was the hard work to choose who, and what message,
would best 'represent.'<br>
<br>
The question of voting is another form of the larger dilemma, AFAICS.
And this (CS) MM Working Group, in which we are now deliberating,
found itself in the end establishing a voting process. Indeed
one of the reasons there was not more action out of WSIS was the
absence of such a decision lever.<br>
</div>
<div>Those aren't answers, only attempts to look for a path toward
answers. But a wider frame may begin to poke out: The IGF
is a - bold - step further along, to CS, and PS, and governments
sitting together more as equals. That is not a small thing.
It does, however, make more starkly evident the 'two cultures' brought
together in tension (channeling here of course <a
href="http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Two_Cultures.html">CP Snow</a>
from some decades ago):</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Those who know the standardization world know how the IETF on the
one side and the ITU on the other seem to occupy separate universes,
as far as process goes. Open, y'all come versus hierarchical
discipline. So we at CS bring a foreign - open - mode up beside
governments who understand and rely on structure.</div>
<div><br>
Yet as the tiny history above tells us, we too needed some structure
and discipline.<br>
<br>
Perhaps at the core: As we move beyond those whom we know
personally - inevitable in a global dialog - mechanisms for discipline
are sought to substitute for the trust no longer so easily built.
But we need the trust to create an atmosphere for successful
deliberation ... maybe the horns of our dilemma become clearer.<br>
<br>
An air for successful deliberation needs the trust in informal,
personal connections. But when the breadth of participation
leads to the impersonal, then we also need the opposite, structure and
discipline.<br>
</div>
<div>If I try to list, I will fail to mention someone - but of course
this only grows organically out of all the deliberation here, so far.
And is only a poke further into the puzzle.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>But we do find the focus back to the mission, deliberation.
Hopefully we can temper ourselves to factor in both the opposites, in
a canny way that makes for even greater discourse with governments,
the next time around.</div>
<div><br>
David</div>
</body>
</html>