VS: [Mmwg] IGF Input

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Thanks Vittorio,
 
here are my first reactions (see inside the text)
 
> 1. We support the idea of a programme committee and would reject other
> insitutional arrangements like a "Buereu" or a "Steering Committee".

Vittorio:
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.

Wolfgang:
We need obviously more thinking about the differencdes of a "Steering Committee" and a "Programme Committee". If we go forward with a "bottom up" process, probably the IGF I will coem to the conclusion, that we need both: a SC to manage the process, and a PC to prepare the event. For the moment, to keep the wholething small, I would prefere to call for a PC. BTW, the EU changed is language from Day 1 to Day  2 of the consultations and moved also from SC to PC. 
 
> 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).

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

Wolfgang:
okay

> 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)

Vittorio:
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.

Wolfgang:
If it is 15 it has to be 5:5:5. I see your point but5 we do not decide, we give input to the Secretariast and we should clear that this "small group" would be our option, if we alone could decide. But klets be flexible here. 
  
> 4. One of the tasks of IGF I is to agree on the future management
> structure and  Programme Commiteee for IGF II.

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

Wolfgang:
In principle I agree. BTW this is a challenge for CS. Who ist the body who has the legitimacy and representativness to "select"?

> 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)

Vittorio:
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.

Wolfgang:
Good point. So the proposal would be that the Secretariat - after consultation with individual experts and the PC - should publish a call for papers. The final selection of the papers would be in the hands of the PC (based on receommendations by the Secretariat). I hope that governments will join this academic procedure. But lets wait an see.  

 
> 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.

Vittorio:
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:

Wolfgang:
Sorry for the confusion. It was Saturday, February, 25.