[Mmwg] IGF Input

[Milton Mueller]

My comments on Wolfgang and Vittorio:

>>Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto:
>> 1. We support the idea of a programme committee and 
>>would reject other insitutional arrangements like a "Buereu" 
>>or a "Steering Committee".
>
>>>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 2/23/2006 5:51 AM >>>
>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.
 
I agree with Vittorio on this, and would propose that it be called a "multistakeholder council" rather than a "program committee" or a "steering committee." Our language does need to emphasize the ongoing ability of the council to approve WGs and play some role in managing the relationships among secretariat and stakeholders.

>> 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).

Wolfgang: In general, this language gives the ms council too much power. I would prefer to see the ideas for themes come from WGs (which I renamed "email-based preparatory groups" to avoid misunderstandings by governments) and the council limited to approving or consolidating them. You could accommodate these concerns by replacing the term "defining the themes..." with the language I originally proposed: 

"to accept proposals for "themes" from stakeholders and to authorize the creation of lightweight, email-based preparatory groups around those themes."

This is very important to me.