[Mmwg] IGF Input

[karen banks]

hi everyone

sorry to have been totally absent, good work, a few points (note, the 
doc needs a careful copyedit and check for typos, i haven't done that 
but noticed some)

>4. The composition of the "Programme Committee", like any other body 
>which will emerge from the IGF process, should reflect the 
>multistakeholder nature of the "Governance of the Internet". It must 
>also reflect the principle of geographical, cultural and language 
>diversity and gender balance as well as a human rights and 
>development perspective. The MMWG proposes to start with a small 
>"Programme Committee" representing all stakeholders on an equal 
>footing. Individual Programme Committee members should participate 
>on an equal, peer-level basis. It may be advisable to consider 
>whether the Programme Committee should be replenished with new 
>members on an annual basis. If so, the Committee and the Secretariat 
>could devise a procedure for this task, to be approved by the annual meeting.

i liked out comment in the IGF about PG members having experience of 
IG related issues, but not to see their role as one of promoting 
particular positions and advocacies. it may be that you have 
discussed that in the list, and if so i apologise.. if not, can we 
add something along these lines? if you agree, i will draft a sentance

>5. Acting in close consultation with the IGF Secretariat and 
>individual experts, the Program Committee should publish as soon as 
>possible a "Call for Proposals" (CFP) soliciting input on priority 
>issues to be considered at the first annual meeting in Greece. The 
>Programme Committee should establish transparent procedures for the 
>consideration of these inputs, as well as criteria for the selection 
>of topics, speakers, and so on.  The Committee would then be 
>responsible for making the final decision on these matters in 
>accordance with the agreed procedures and criteria.

how does this tie in with the call the IGF secretariat has out now 
for themes to be submitted by end march? would this be an additional call?

>6. Programme Committee could also facilitate a process of the bottom 
>up formation of "Discussion Groups" on various aspects of Internet 
>Governance, in particular with regard to issues, listed in Section V 
>of the WGIG Final Report. The Programme Committee should establish 
>transparent procedures and criteria for the formation and 
>recognition of any of such sub-groups or initiatives stakeholders 
>may wish to organize on relevant topics.   All stakeholders should 
>be able to propose sub-groups on a bottom-up basis.  Any such 
>groupings should be open to all stakeholders that may wish to 
>participate, transparent, and based primarily on virtual 
>collaboration.  They could engage in a range of activities, e.g. 
>inclusive dialogue, monitoring and analysis of trends, conducting 
>studies, and developing recommendations for action.  Furthermore the 
>Program Committee should also define transparent procedures and 
>criteria according to which such "Discussion Groups on Internet 
>Governance" (DGIGs) could propose any results of their activities as 
>possible inputs for consideration in the annual meetings.

it's a good idea, but it's a lot of work.. is it really feasible? 
maybe the PC would need to form a sub-group of motivated indivudals

>7.  The MMWG will continue its discussion with regard to the second 
>call of the IGF Secretariat related to content and substantial 
>issues. We will provide another input before the dateline of March, 30, 2006.

karen