[Mmwg] Suggestion for consultation

[Avri Doria]

hi,

but in the WGIG we participated as individuals.  so what model are we  
looking for and individual participant model or the model of CS as  
junior partner?

a question i have is whether CS has the same rights to speak as one  
single government or is a house that is equal to the government house  
and can speak in many voices?

a.


On 17 feb 2006, at 08.39, William Drake wrote:

> Agree with Jeanette.  The problem is that in an open forum, lots of  
> people
> want to speak as CS who don't work with us so we can't coordinate  
> with them
> on keeping it short and to the point, and some didn't---there were  
> some
> long, rambling, rather pointless interventions.  Barely any  
> governments got
> to speak in the afternoon, and the Iranian ambassador got annoyed  
> and said
> if this is what peer level openess means, we don't want it, let's  
> go to the
> ILO model with designated reps speaking etc.  Ok, not our favorite
> government, but I'll bet that MANY government reps were thinking  
> something
> similar, and Markus expressed concern about the potential impact on  
> their
> willingness to seriously engage in the process.  I encouraged him  
> to suggest
> that Nitan set a three minute rule or something, but who knows.
>
> We'll have to think about this, in any event.
>
> BD
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org]On
>> Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 8:09 AM
>> To: Vittorio Bertola
>> Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
>> Subject: Re: [Mmwg] Suggestion for consultation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>> carlos a. afonso ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> I think that in terms of result it is a success, much better than  
>>> when
>>> Jeanette/Adam were reading a pre-packaged document that took days to
>>> agree on, and that was often forced towards a lowest common
>> denominator.
>>> I like this modality more, even when we disagree (we said some
>>> contradictory things in our statements, but I think that this  
>>> enriches
>>> the discussion rather than disturbing it).
>>
>> My impression was that we got away with the strategy this time but  
>> won't
>> in the future. I will soon get on the governments' nerves when 15  
>> people
>> speak and not just 3 or 4. They expect some effort in aggregating
>> positions. Rightly so, I think.
>> jeanette
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmwg mailing list
>> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
>> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>