<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>[Mmwg] IGF mechanism version 6.0 (less is more??)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText14096 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>McTim and all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm for V 6.0, but I see 3 things
about it that I think need more work:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. Plenary voting</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>6.0 still requires voting by plenary
(on WG resolutions, WG leaders and WG creation). How is voting done? See next
point for potential solution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. Plenary vs WG composition</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>In 6.0, both the Plenary and WGs are open
to all, so what's the difference between them? The Plenary becomes an instance
of a WG specialized in discussing resolutions and voting. In this
case, again, why do we need the Plenary if we agree that rough consensus, as in
Milton's model, can be used instead of voting?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. WG annual physical meeting</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Don't know. Is it really necessary? As many
have noted, it makes participation by all more costly. If we eliminate the
Plenary however, they are required, and then we mutliply the number of annual
meetings for those participating in multiple WGs.</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>On some points discussed
recently:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Government participation in
WGs</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bill, I understand what you're saying about
the culture shock for gov reps with regards to them participating online in WGs.
However, how are we ever going to achieve "full and equal participation by all
stakeholders" if govs don't work in WGs? If WGs are only populated by CS types,
I don't see how any of the models we're talking about can work. Gov reps
participation in WGs is essential. If WGs produce the final text of IGF
resolutions, I think they *will* participate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Uniformity of tools used in
IGF</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think it is very important that we use
the same tools in all WGs. Many people will participate in multiple WGs. They
shouldn't have to learn a different tool for each. IGF's structure must be open,
but some things must be managed centrally. I think this is one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bureau</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Where are others on the Bureau issue when
considering V 6.0 which doesn't have one?</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>On some points not discussed
yet:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>WG size</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>How many people do we expect in the most
popular WGs? Is it realistic to have WGs work online with, say, 400 active
participants?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Language</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nobody has objected to the requirement of
using English only for online work. Maybe I'm not optimistic enough, but I find
this surprising. Maybe we're too uniform a group? Although in the UN many gov
reps choose EN for documents even though their national language is not EN and
is "one of the 6", we may get more opposition if they have to work online in EN.
OTOH I don't see how we can realistically provide online multilingual support in
realtime.</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 dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
mmwg-bounces+lfaubert=conceptum.ca@wsis-cs.org on behalf of
McTim<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thu 2006-01-26 13:03<BR><B>To:</B>
mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Mmwg] IGF mechanism version 6.0 (less is
more??)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Hi Luc, et. al.,<BR><BR>I've stripped down your proposal to it's
bare bones, and tried to<BR>remove bits that have been objected to by
folk. Any takers?<BR><BR><BR>Plenary<BR>- Composed of entities, people,
etc<BR>- Discusses (but cannot change) a resolution supplied by
working<BR>groups and adopts them (or not) as IGF recommendations.<BR>- Expected
to conduct its business online whenever possible. Online<BR>communications will
be in English (due to the costs that translating<BR>all email would
entail).<BR>- One yearly physical meeting<BR>- All entities, people, etc., have
equal speaking rights.<BR>- Interpretation is available in the 6 UN languages
for physical meetings.<BR><BR>Working groups<BR>- Open to all (including all
plenary entities).<BR>- They do their business online and meet physically
annually.<BR>- Their job is to agree on recommendations that are reported to
the<BR>plenary, and to the Internet Community at large<BR>- Working group Chairs
call rough consensus.<BR>- Because working groups must be global by nature,
their working<BR>language is English.<BR>- All resolutions submitted to the
plenary must be made available in<BR>all UN languages.<BR>- All working groups
use the same online tools.<BR><BR><BR>+++ Procedures<BR><BR>Bootstrap
loader<BR>1. Interim Chair is Nitin Desai and interim Secretariat is Markus
Kummer.<BR>2. After an open call for nominations, Chair and Secretariat
are<BR>elected for a 2-year term. Both can be reelected for any number
of<BR>terms.<BR><BR><BR>Working group creation<BR>- Proposals for working groups
are submitted to Chair/Secretariat by<BR>interested parties along with their
suggestions for co-leaders.<BR>- An open call for WG leader nominations is
issued by Secretariat.<BR>- Chair-Secretariat can veto creation of ill-defined
working groups<BR>(irrelevant to IGF mandate, unrealistic scope, and scope
overlap with<BR>existing WGs).<BR>- Plenary votes on working group
creation.<BR>- Plenary votes on WG leaders.<BR><BR>Default working group<BR>- A
working group on procedural issues is created by default.<BR>- Its leaders are
the Chair and the Secretariat.<BR>- It is responsible for:<BR> -
changes to IGF mechanism,<BR> - setting the agenda,<BR>
- outline of meeting logistics,<BR> - software tools to be used by
IGF.<BR><BR>Chair<BR>- Presides over meetings.<BR>- Reviews and approves
proceedings reports submitted by Secretariat.<BR><BR>Secretariat<BR>- Prepares
Proceedings report.<BR>- Administers web site and public communications of
IGF.<BR>- Handles logistics of IGF online and physical meetings.<BR>- Receives
nominations.<BR>- Receives applications for the creation of working
groups.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>Cheers,<BR><BR>McTim<BR>$ whois -h
whois.afrinic.net
mctim<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>mmwg mailing
list<BR>mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><A
href="http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg">http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>