VS: VS: [Mmwg] IGF Input

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

To clarify, it would be dangerous to buy the Chinese idea of "three bureaus". My propåosal is indeed as repeated by Vittorio to have first (here and now) a Programme Committee which is "multistakeholder", full period.
 
Additionally we  indicate, that in the mid-term it will not be enough to have PS preparing an event, but that we woulkd need also a group facilitating the discussion between the vents. (the facilitaiton group). But this needs further discussion and insofar we reduce our main proposal at this stage on the PC. 
 
w
 

 
________________________________

Lähettäjä: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org puolesta: Vittorio Bertola
Lähetetty: pe 24.2.2006 17:38
Vastaanottaja: Avri Doria
Kopio: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Aihe: Re: VS: [Mmwg] IGF Input



Il giorno ven, 24/02/2006 alle 17.26 +0100, Avri Doria ha scritto:
> in some incarnations is it two separate bureaus with one being 
> Countries and one the rest of us
>
> and in some incarnations, is it more in terms of a bicameral notion 
> where the Multi stakeholder  body has two sections, and two 
> appointment procedures, the countries and the rest of us.

Uhm, I don't understand - Wolfgang's proposal was about two different
groups, both multistakeholder, different by function - one to oversee
the process and one to organize the yearly meeting. Now you are talking
about two groups that do the same thing but are different by
composition. This is a different idea, though. Or am I wrong?
--
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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