[Mmwg] IGF Input

[Luc Faubert]

Bill,
 
I think composition of the Committee is central to our Chair's question:

		"a) The need for a multistakeholder group to assist the the Secretary-General in convening the IGF, what the mandate of this group should be and how it should be formed."
		

and, lifted from the transcripts (the Chair speaking) :

		"And a multistakeholder group, what people have different ideas, A, on whether
		such a group is -- people want some time to think whether such a group is
		necessary.
		
		I think my sense is that a very large number of people here do believe it is.
		
		But, in fairness, we have to give people time to react to that idea.
		
		And second, how it will be constituted, whether it will be constituted as a
		single group, if so, how large, or whether it is constituted as multiple
		groups.
		
		So what I am proposing is that this is one of the issues on which we need a
		response relatively quickly, which is, let us say, ten -- about ten days from
		now."
		

As for consensus on the Technical/Academic house, from what I read here, there hasn't been consensus on anything yet. We couldn't even reach consensus on chairs until we voted.
 
Isn't having a T&A house a logical way to garantee that the people who develop and run the Internet can bring their perspective to the debate over how the Internet is to be developed and run?
 
I thought we were all for multistakeholderism,
 
- Luc Faubert
ISOC Québec
 

________________________________

From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
Sent: Fri 2006-02-24 11:02
To: Luc Faubert; Avri Doria
Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: [Mmwg] IGF Input


Hi,
 
The T&A issue has been debated at length in WGIG, the IG Caucus, and to some extent here, and is consistent with the ISOC position in the IGF consultations that "THE Internet community" should be recognized as a fourth stakeholder grouping.   Some of us have been strongly opposed to creating this fourth category, some thought it a good idea, others didn't care much either way.  Without digging through list archives I wouldn't venture to characterize the split between those positions, but it is fair to say that it's never been a point on which there's remotely been consensus.   Since peoples' positions probably haven't changed, we won't resolve it this weekend before providing an IGF input, and we don't have to, it's hardly central to Desai's questions.
 
Best,
 
Bill
 
 
 

 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of Luc Faubert
	Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 3:40 PM
	To: Avri Doria
	Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
	Subject: RE: [Mmwg] IGF Input
	
	
	Sorry Avri and all. Should've been "Gov, Biz, CS and T&A".
	 
	T&A is Technical and Academic.
	 
	You're right about the priorities. We have enough on our hands now,
	 
	- Luc Faubert
	ISOC Québec

________________________________

	From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
	Sent: Fri 2006-02-24 09:04
	To: Luc Faubert
	Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
	Subject: Re: [Mmwg] IGF Input
	
	

	On 24 feb 2006, at 14.51, Luc Faubert wrote:


		5 regions x 1 rep from 4 groups (Gov, Biz, PS and T&A) = 20 members.


	did you mean biz and CS (PS is private sector usually understood as biz)
	and T&A is probably not the american T&A  :-)
	- do you mean the Internet technical and operational community and academics?


		Second question was about priority of themes to be discussed in Athens. Will we submit a prioritized list of themes ?

		 


	is that a modalities question and thus one for this group?  or is that more of a governance caucus question? 


	a.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060224/70f5d09d/attachment.htm