[Mmwg] RE: Mechanism proposition

[Luc Faubert]

Hello all,
 
IGF players' reaction to our proposal
I agree with Bill. While we discuss and after we reach an agreement within our group, I think it should be our responsability to validate/lobby our position to both orgs and governments in order to build support for its adoption prior to its discussion in plenary.
 
Minimal number of members
The question of imposing a minimal number of members on orgs--and the de facto elimination of individuals from the process--is certainly a touchy issue, but we must put ourselves in governments' place. Yes, it's certainly true that some individuals and reps of small orgs have made important contributions to WSIS, but I think the probability that governments will agree to share equal speaking time with individuals is zero. If we want to gain "full and equal participation", I think we must accept the fact that we need to organize and that plenary speakers must be able to speak for many. Max's proposition to allow unlimited online participation and limit physical participation to orgs looks like an interesting compromise that may be suitable to most. What do you think?
 
Timeline
Does anybody know when IGF wants to be operational with the mechanism? Exactly how much time do we have if we are to propose something to the secratariat? Is Feb 16-17 our last chance or will there be more consultation meetings? I'm not in the secretariat's inner circle, but I would guess that nobody over there knows exactly how to run this new thing. I think the earlier we come in with a proposition, the better our chances will be to have it discussed and adopted. Am I correct to assume that we should have a workable proposition for Feb 16 (even earlier if we want to be able to evangelize it)?
 
 
- Luc Faubert
ISOC Québec
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060116/3d4dc6fe/attachment.htm