[Mmwg] IGF Input

[Vittorio Bertola]

Il giorno gio, 23/02/2006 alle 11.00 +0100, Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha
scritto:
> Here are my five points as a starter
>  
> 1. We support the idea of a programme committee and would reject other
> insitutional arrangements like a "Buereu" or a "Steering Committee".

Well, I would agree with objecting to the "bureau", but I do support the
idea of a "steering committee"; I still think that there is need for
more than just a programme committee, in the sense that you also need to
create working groups and bless their work, for example. You might
include that in a "programme committee" definition, but I would not
renounce to the ongoing ability for the forum to make decisions all year
round.

We all insisted in our interventions in Geneva that the IGF is "a
process, not an event", so I don't see why to suggest terminology that
goes in the opposite direction. We should really say the opposite, that
we support an ongoing steering group rather than a
one-time-event-focused programme committee.
 
> 2. We are in favour of a limited mandate of the Programme Committee
> (defining the themes of the IGF, defining the subjects of the
> different sessions and inviting speakers, panelists, moderators and
> rapporteurs for the Plenary and WG Sessions of the IGF).

See above. I would stress the point about releasing documents and
recommendations.

> 3. The composition of the programme Committee should be along the
> lines of the WGIG (small/15/, multistakeholder, appointed by the UN SG
> (probably based on recommendations by stakeholder groups, limited
> mandate (until the end of the IGF I only)

I have some reservations about the size, I already said I think that it
will be difficult for govs to agree on less than 15 people, so making it
small would possibly reduce our numbers, not theirs. But this is not a
fundamental issue, I do share the concern about making this group too
big and heavy.

> 4. One of the tasks of IGF I is to agree on the future management
> structure and  Programme Commiteee for IGF II.

And, I would add, on how each stakeholder group could select its
representatives.

> 5. Working Papers for IGF I should be organized by the IGF Secretariat
> in consultation with recognized experts (probably based on
> recommendations from the Programme Committee after the May meeting) 

I think that working papers for the IGF should be released by online
working groups, not by some experts appointed by the committee. I guess
that what you mean is actually a call for papers / contributions and I
am fine with that, but I do see the need for agreed documents as an
output of the IGF - not just a collection of contributions.

> But first things first. The pressing dateline is February, 28. I
> invite all members of the list, to comment on the points above, to
> make additional proposals or to raise new issues. I hope that we can
> get an general impression from  the group until Wednesday, February,
> 22, 2006.

Not sure you can ask for comments by Feb 22 when posting on Feb 23 :-)
In any case, I would suggest to collect comments until tomorrow, if you
can manage to work on Monday:

> Jacki and I will try then to formulate a statement open for comments
> until Monday, 27. The final version will be send to Kummer on Tuesday,
> February, 28. 

Thanks,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...