VS: VS: [Mmwg] IGF Input

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

>>> 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.

Mitlon.
 
Are they different groups completely? If so, I think it's too complicated and we lack to resources and bandwidth to carry it out.

Wolfgang
The idea is "think big, start small, move fast". The PC is the small start. There is no time and it would be confusing indeed to discuss now two bodies. Lets concentrate to prepare IGF I. But in the process - moving fast - we will recognize, as it has been said by several contributors, there is something more than only to decide on the programme of a forum. I feel opposition on the list against a "Council" or a "Steering Committee" (which I share) but I would go along with Avri´s "Facilitation" proposal. I have labeled it "Group" because this is the most neutral terminology. Not a decision making body but equipped with some competences - i.a. the approval of e-IGWGs.  In our statement we could say that we - at this stage - prefere to concentrate on a PC but would eoncourge more creative thininkg about the formation of a "Facilitation Group" on the way to Athens which could be established during the IGF I. 
 
Wolfgang:
>Criteria for recognition of e-IGWGs could be

Milton:
This is outside the scope of the Feb. 28 deadline, so can we drop it?

Wolfgang:
Yes, but we should mention the basic idea and the principle. Not to be specific.
BTW, the dateline for the second question of Nitin (themes) is mARCH 31, 2006. so let´s first things do first. 
 
w