[Mmwg] IGF - call for comments

[Max Senges]

Dear all

>From my remote observer post, this seems to be an obvious question. Yes we
do see a need for a multi-stakeholder group as we all participate in MMWG,
which in a way, intends to be such a group.

I guess if this new group is meant to be 'official & exclusive', the
'famous' WGIG can exemplify the formation and the mandate would be to
transparently and collaboratively define the setup of the IGF.

Within this scenario it seems a good idea to divide discussion/collaboration
on the definition of the (1) modus operandi and of the (2) thematic scope
(agenda).

In such a scenario the current civil-society structures with the IG caucus
(for agenda and wider deliberation) and the MMWG as CS backup of the
modalities discussion, seems well setup.

@Avri: I understand that - as mentioned - from our charter the MMWG is meant
to incorporate gov-reps and ps-reps as well but do you think they will be
interested to actively discuss with us? I believe there might be some who
subscribe and lurk but gov-reps are too technophobe and ps-reps are too busy
making money to engage in discussion on a list like this. But I am ready to
be surprised

max

-----Original Message-----
From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Avri Doria
Sent: lunes, 20 de febrero de 2006 17:10
To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [Mmwg] IGF - call for comments

hi,

One of the items that came out of the IGF consultations may be of  
interst/relevance to this group:


All stakeholders are invited to submit their views on these questions.

Please let us know what your views are on:

a) The need for a multistakeholder group to assist the the Secretary- 
General in convening the IGF, what the mandate of this group should  
be and how it should be formed.
Please submit your comments by 28 February 2006.





a.


_______________________________________________
mmwg mailing list
mmwg at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg