[Mmwg] IGF Input

Fri Feb 24 18:53:04 GMT 2006

Just a quick response about the matters under consideration -

I think Program Committee is the right construct for looking towards
multistakeholder involvement. Leave the logistics and other matters to the
secretariat and host country.

And I dont agree with a fourth group - call it technical and academic,
internet community, internet technical community, or whatever. (If there has
to be a fourth group, call it internet industry, as quite distinct from
business in general, or the very narrow range of interests represented by
those who purport to represent the "internet community" or "internet
technical community"). 

Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email HYPERLINK "mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com"ian.peter at ianpeter.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.ianpeter.com/"www.ianpeter.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.internetmark2.org/"www.internetmark2.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.nethistory.info/"www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100
Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

   _____  

From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of William Drake
Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2006 5:24 AM
To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: [Mmwg] IGF Input

Hi Luc,

I don't see the problem with respect to the chair's question.  There are
technical people in each of the three societal sectors conventionally
recognized in the UN and beyond, and you don't have to create a new category
catering to a particular interest group in order to ensure that some
technical people get on a IGF boot-up team.  There undoubtedly will be some,
as there has been in the past.  Academics are in the non-profit sector, aka
CS, and they too have been included from the start.  Nobody has ever been
excluded by anything other than their personal circumstances (e.g.
financial, time) or their disinterest in or distaste for a dialogue in the
UN context.

I'm supposed to be crashing on a deadline rather than goofing off with
email, so I can't go back and revisit all the previous dialogues on this
point, but you could certainly look in the governance caucus archive and
find some of them, presumably there were some messages with correctly
labeled subject lines.  

Best,

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert at conceptum.ca]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 5:44 PM
To: William Drake; Avri Doria
Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: [Mmwg] IGF Input

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.

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 23/02/2006

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/268 - Release Date: 23/02/2006

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060225/6a95dac0/attachment.htm