VS: [Mmwg] IGF Input

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Could we agree to propose in the statement
A. a "Programme Committee" and
B. (at a later stage) a "Facilitation Group".
 
A would be responsible to prepare the F2F event
B would be responsible to facilitate the discussion within the process, that is between the big F2F event. 
 
The establishment of "e Internet Governance Working Groups" (e-IGWGs) should be "bottom up". Everybody should be free within the framework of certain criteria (which have to be defined) to establish an e-IGWG but it would need the "approval" by the PC (later the FG). Criteria for recognition of e-IGWGs could be
- minimum number of subscribers
- multistakeholder participation
- geographical and language diversity 
- openess and transparency
- within the framework of the Tunis Mandate (para.72) 
- ETC.
 
wolf
  

________________________________

Lähettäjä: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org puolesta: Avri Doria
Lähetetty: pe 24.2.2006 14:54
Vastaanottaja: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Aihe: Re: [Mmwg] IGF Input




On 24 feb 2006, at 13.13, Milton Mueller wrote:

> The issue is whether the strucure is set up in a way that allows 
> independent groups to propose and form thematic units which are 
> then reacted to by the committee (approval, chairs, etc.) OR, 
> whether the committee itself makes all the decisions about what 
> thematic groups exist. And to what degree do those groups act 
> autonomously of the committee?

is it accepted by this group that the WG, or whatever they may be 
called, even if set up bottom-up need to be approved?

i think this is one of the essential differences between steering/
coordinating  and program committees.  program committees, to my 
mind, only define what is on this year's agenda, and don't define 
what is worked on in general. bureau/steering means deciding on the 
general nature and scope of work in general.  and i am not sure i 
understand what a coordinating committee does since most definitions 
i know usually remove any notion of management (deciding and 
discriminating between options) from the act of coordinating 
(facilitating, helping and enabling things to happen).

>
> I don't disagree with your point, but I think it is so subtle that 
> it stretches the capacity of people to understand what you are 
> talking about beyond the breaking point, especially Governmental 
> delegations who are used to the traditional modalities.

i think this is an important point.  i think a lot of the things we 
think are large topics get lost in the noise when talking to those 
who aren't steeped in the discussion and the jargon.

a.

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