[Mmwg] IGF Input

[Jacqueline Morris]

On 2/23/06, Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.


I've been thinking that the programme committee and the steering committee
were 2 different functions - one planning the meetings and one running the
substantive work inbetween meetings - papers, working groups etc. Cause
otherwise if we only have a PC, then the IGF will pretty much be limited to
focusing efforts on a once a year "conference" rather than what I thought it
would be - a venue for stakeholders to bring up issues related to IG.


>> 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.




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



--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060223/1bf51f40/attachment.html