<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>My critique of Luc's proposal</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText95834 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Thanks for your input,
Milton. Much appreciated. Please allow me to add a few comments on your
points:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>First, I'd like to correct myself for using
"my" in front of the word "model" in a previous post. I should have used *our*
model when referring to V 5.0 because I put it together borrowing liberally from
your model and from the ideas circulating on the list, to which I
added a few things. This doesn't mean I think it will gather de facto
unanimous approval--only that it's an attempt to sum things up, albeit
imperfectly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>One important thing to mention is that I
don't associate the Plenary with physical meetings only. The Plenary and the
Working Group are just two partially overlapping groups of people:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2> Plenary = governements +
accredited orgs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2> Working groups =
Plenary + everybody else (org or individual) who wishes to
participate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Plenary meets once a year physically
and the Working Groups never do.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Both groups do most of their business
online, including voting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>More specifically now, on your
points:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>1) Secretariat</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its responsibilities are (many of which,
you'll notice, have been lifted from your model):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Prepares Proceedings report.<BR>- Administers web
site and public communications of IGF.<BR>- Handles logistics of IGF online and
physical meetings.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Receives nominations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Receives applications for accreditation by orgs
and proceeds to pre-evaluation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Receives applications for the creation of working
groups.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>So the Secretariat handles housekeeping
mostly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>The only real decisional power it has--and
in order to use it, it must act with the Chair--is the ability to veto the
creation of work groups for very specific reasons (irrelevant to IGF mandate,
unrealistic scope, scope overlap with existing WGs). Otherwise, I think the only
potentially controversial thing it can do is provide a pre-evaluation of
applications for accreditation. This is meant to alleviate the need for members
of the Plenary to do all the preliminary analysis of accreditations. We can
always take this responsibility out of the Secretariat's scope if is problematic
and let the Working Group on procedural issues decide.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>2) Individual participation in the
Plenary</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>One way to look at this is to ask ourselves
if this is really necessary, keeping in my that most of the work in the model is
done by Working Groups, where I expect everybody from the Plenary will (or
should participate), since this is where final text is drafted and the Plenary
cannot change it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>This way, all of the discussion and most of
the work accomplished in the WSIS Plenary are actually shifted to the
Working Groups, IETF-style.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>The only discussion that would happen in
the Plenary, really, would be to gather clarifications on a resolution so that
Plenary members understand the resolution they are going to vote on. I expect
this to be minimal, since Plenary members (or other members of their
"delegation") should have participated in the Working Group that drafted the
resolution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Having said this, I realize some of us
would still prefer individuals to be able to vote in the Plenary. In order to
allow this, I think we must rethink the representation within V 5.0's ORGs
group, since allowing an unlimited number of individuals to vote in there
would offset negatively the "representational quality" of organizations that may
represent thousands or millions of people while having only one vote in the
Plenary. This is certainly shaky ground because the way V 5.0 works, orgs all
have one vote, whether they have 2 or 2 million members.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>This is definitely an unresolved issue and
we have to work on this. I don't know how to accomodate everybody. One idea I
suggested in an earlier post was to put a cap on the individual/org ratio to
avoid individual capture of the org vote, but that doesn't solve the issue of 2
vs 2 million-member orgs having both one vote. Help!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>3) Plenary voting</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>The way I see it, all voting must be done
using an online tool. All voting (on resolutions or on accreditations)
should also be done in discreet events at periodic intervals, without waiting
for the physical meetings, because I think it's unrealistic to think we'll get
government reps to vote electronically in a physical Plenary (maybe I
underestimate them). </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>The physical meetings could
thus be used more as a gathering and a chance for people to get to know each
other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>This way of working relieves the physical
Plenary from much of what it did in WSIS and would certainly require a cultural
change but hey, all this is about the Internet, so shouldn't we use
it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>You have a good point on the negative
sentiment on voting in some UN bodies, but remember that voting *is* used
in the General Assembly, as well as in the Security Council (although in there
it is subject to veto).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I imagine some people could find voting to
be overkill just to agree on policy issues, but I think that from a Working
Group's perspective, the fact that they will have to agree on resolutions that
will be voted upon may encourage contributors to auto-moderation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>4) Language</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>One caveat about online collaboration, as
opposed to physical UN-style meetings, is that you loose
all multilingualism by requiring that everybody communicate in English.
This is another type of barrier to entry and could be unacceptable to
some.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hope this helps move things
forward,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Luc Faubert</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>ISOC Québec</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Milton Mueller
[mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tue 2006-01-24 10:05<BR><B>To:</B> Luc
Faubert; mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> My critique of Luc's
proposal<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Here is my analysis and critique of Luc's proposal. In a
subsequent message, I will try to modify the proposal I sent in ways that might
accommodate the two.<BR><BR>There are, in my opinion, three major flaws in
Faubert's proposal.<BR><BR>1) It concentrates too much power in the Secretariat,
which is just an appointed individual with no direct representation of
stakeholders.<BR>2) It prevents individuals from participating in the
Plenary.<BR>3) Its heavy reliance on Plenary voting. This is the biggest
problem. This would be too cumbersome administratively, and simply would not
work in a UN context, where voting is considered a sign of failure and is
strenuously avoided. In particular, the idea that organizational accreditations
would have to be ALL voted on by the Plenary is just not viable; it would eat up
all its time and focus all its energies on attempts to control who can
participate. It is a really bad idea to have Plenary votes determine who gets
accredited. Keep in mind the precedent of the WSIS Plenary vote on Human Rights
in China's accreditation. That was ONE organization. Want to multiply that by
100?<BR><BR>In effect, in order to get rid of the Bureau, Luc has loaded the
both the Plenary and the Secretariat with too much voting and administrative
action. This would destroy the ability of the Plenary to serve as a
deliberative, discussion forum. The Plenary would become more like a
legislature, with organized factions striving for a 2/3 majority rather than
listening and discussing.<BR><BR>I have to say I don't much like the idea of
having a Bureau myself, but it is the best solution to the need for some kind of
"representative" decision making.<BR><BR>Also, let me agree with and echo these
thoughts of Luc:<BR><BR>>>> "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca>
1/20/2006 1:47 PM >>><BR>>There are many people here who have not
posted yet and our process would benefit from their
input.<BR><BR>--MM<BR><BR></FONT></P></DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>