[Mmwg] Suggestion for consultation

[carlos a. afonso]

In my view, the caucus declaration read today by Jeanette, and the APC
response to the IGF questionnaire (and presented also today by Karen B),
are what could be done on the part of CS in time for this initial
consultation round. We might have missed the boat, but the issue we plan
to deal with is extremely important and still needs good proposals as
part of the IGF __process__, so let us continue and not despair... :)

Sorry, Bertrand, but given the voting system setup already prepared and
the need to move forward, I suggest we just go ahead and vote.

frt rgds

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
To: <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>, <mmwg at wsis-cs.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:07:16 -0500
Subject: Re: [Mmwg] Suggestion for consultation

> Jacqueline:
> To me it seems that the value of this group is its ability to focus
> on one specific and more detailed issue related to the Forum, namely
> its "MM" or "multistakeholder modalities." If we have something to
> say about that, we should have developed it two weeks ago and put it
> on the intgovforum site. If not (and frankly I think we missed the
> boat), we should remain silent and not rush into something for the
> sake of having something to say. 
> 
> >>> Jacqueline Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com> 2/14/2006 11:55:07
> PM >>>
> Hi
> Rather than working on a total mechanism and not saying anything in
> public
> until we get that sorted, would it be interesting to ppl for us to
> pull
> together some BASIC PRINCIPLES as a first step that we can present at
> the
> consultation that we think that any mechanism needs to subscribe to?
> We have
> articulated some, I believe, and that might be an easy consensus
> first step.
> 
> --
> Jacqueline Morris
> www.carnivalondenet.com 
> T&T Music and videos online
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg