VS: [Mmwg] IGF Input

[Robert Guerra]

Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> Could we agree to propose in the statement

agree. I would suggest we try to complement the discussion on email and
use one of the Wiki's that have been setup by list members ? (ie. Max
has one @ http://mmwg.wikicities.com/,). With all the mention of
collaborative technologies, we might as well use them. So, if you've
made an offer - here's your chance...



> A. a "Programme Committee" and
> B. (at a later stage) a "Facilitation Group".


The term Programme Committee seems the most politically correct term
(PC) at this  time. ;)

Great care should be taken in the specific terms that this group puts
forward. As well all know different words & terms are used in different
environments. In the United Nations context, the terms "council" ,
"Bureau" are understood to be structures that we don't want. Thus, let's
keep to terms that are simpler, and more descriptive.


> A would be responsible to prepare the F2F event

What role should the Greeks play in this? No doubt they may want to be
involved some how. There should be some thought on what role (if any)
the IGF meeting host might have.


> B would be responsible to facilitate the discussion within the process, that is between the big F2F event. 

- perhaps an emphasis on open and transparent discussions should be
added, that is - if it isn't elsewhere..

ie. to facilitate transparent open discussions within the process,
between the Face to Face meetings..

> 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 
> - openness and transparency
> - within the framework of the Tunis Mandate (para.72) 
> - ETC.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> 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.

The "communications protocol" idea that came up at the Diplo meeting in
Malta might be good to put forward. That is , if it's ready for prime
time? If i'm not mistaken, it encompassed many of the points you raise.



regards

Robert