[Mmwg] IGF Input

[Robert Guerra]

To not get into document format battles, i've attached a PDF version of
the text Wolfgang sent earlier today. It includes line numbers - which
might help in suggesting revisions...

Below are my comments ..



<Preamble>. Lines 10-13


- The section looks better now, thanks Bill
- Getting back to discussions earlier this week, I think it should be
mentioned that while the list was initiated by "CS" its "purpose" is a
space for the different stakeholders to develop and propose modalities...

- Thus suggest revision in the word "mandate" to "purpose" as mandate, i
think is too strong a word

- Should there not be a mention of the consultation in Feb, and the
specific question posed by Desai?

- Would revise line 13 to include a reference that the text the WG has
come up with is a result of a consultation among the group members. I
think it might be a good idea to explicitly mention that the virtual
consultation and discussion we propose for the IGF is indeed something
that is done by this group.

Suggest the following revision:
..The members of the MMWG having engaged in an open and transparent
consultation would like to offer..

< Section 1>

- would add the specific reference in the WGIG report where the quote is
taken from
- Use of the word "embedded" might not be the most appropriate one, can
it be described in more than one word?

<Section 2>

- Suggest flipping the reference of heavy vs. light structures.
Recommend that the reference to the WSIS principles be made first, and
then the heavy structures we want to avoid.

- thus if the para is ready quickly, one gets a sense of what we want
and what is called for at the beginning of the section, no

<Section 3>

- make the emphasis on the light weight and decentralized structure
ie. Suggest adding "and decentralized" after light weight

- Calling for the creation of another "body" might be giving the wrong
impression of what we'd like. The "forum" itself is a body, something
that was a challenge enough to get setup. Calling a whole different
structure likely will not happen.

If instead, what's called for is a  committee or working group  of the
IGF itself, then that should be specifically mentioned.

An Alternate idea would to call on the IGF to ensure that facilitation
is an essential tool, one that will greatly enrich the debate.
...bureaucratic and formal mechanisms to limit and control debate
should not, must be avoided ..


<Section 4>

- Let's not get into a numbers game as to the # of stakeholders. Can we
change the reference from a specific number to a more general reference
that mentions the WSIS stateholders instead

If we consider International organizations and UN bodied also as
"stakeholders", then the # is up to 5. I don't want to get into a trap
into the specific # we are referring to, thus the simpler "WSIS
stakeholders" (or something similiar)

- keep the specific reference that "geographic diversity" , but  drop
the reference to the "UN regions", as it might be an indirect support to
countries that wish that existing UN consultation structures be used.

- the end of the section might have to be revised to agree with the
stakeholder reference at the beginning.

<Section 5>

- are we calling for an annual change over? you got to be
kidding....nothing will get done if the people change every year.

Ok, are we referring to a "duration of term for PC" members? if so, then
let's get into those details. if not, drop this whole section.

<Section 6>

- Might want to add something regarding the process by which the
proposals are considered by the IGF Secretatrait.

There is a - grave - concern by many that the issues of human rights &
freedom of expression are completely off the table for the first couple
of IGF meetings.  the ongoing issues with censorship in china,
surveillance and objectionable content (political dissent, cartoons,
child porn, harmful content" ) suggest otherwise. How these issues will
be treated - be it as a separate topic, or as a cross cutting them to be
discussed in any theme  is something this CS group should consider.

For example, I would suggest that any discussion on and about spam
include a discussion on the "freedom of expression consequences" of
filtering (ie. censorship)

So what to propose..., well, definitely suggest an iterative process,
one where there's an initial call. A "proposed" list is then made public
and open for short consultation / discussion.

<Section 7>

- too "wordy" right now.
- the suggested text is similar to the "communications protocol"
mentioned at the Malta diplo meeting. Could we not borrow text from that
proposal and fit it in this section?



<Section 8>

- The Tech & Academic reference is one that comes from the Tunis
documents. We didn't object too much to the reference then, and find it
surprizing we now have issues with it.

- Do we really want to mention this? I don't think there's consensus on
this in the MMWG group. I would rather the reference be dropped all
together.

<Closing>

- would suggest using the same format used in the past by the governance
caucus, that being that individual signatories not be listed, but
instead the document is submitted on behalf of (or after consultion of)
the caucus.

Suggested text :

..submitted on behalf of the Multi-Stakeholders Modalities Working Group
(MMWG) without mentioning specific names








-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MMWG-Draft1b.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49428 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060227/92bc6486/MMWG-Draft1b-0001.pdf