AW: [Mmwg] IGF mechanism 5.0

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Dear all,
 
as a latecomer of the list, probably I repeat something, which has been already said. So forgive me if it is redundant. 
 
With regard to the participation of individuals as recognized and accredited "experts", I would refer to Paragraph 33 of the WGIG report which says:
 
33.      Furthermore, the WGIG recognized that the contribution to the Internet of the academic community is very valuable and constitutes one of its main sources of inspiration, innovation and creativity. Similarly, the technical community and its organizations are deeply involved in Internet operation, Internet standard-setting and Internet services development. Both of these groups make a permanent and valuable contribution to the stability, security, functioning and evolution of the Internet. They interact extensively with and within all stakeholder groups.

The Idea behind para 33 was, that members of the academic and technical community (this are the so-called experts) constitute something like a "horizontal 4th stakeholder" group which is mainly rooted in the civil society but works together sometimes as advisers with governments or as consultants with the private sector. With para. 33 the only thing an individual would have to demonstrate his/her affiliation with an academic or technical group (which can be interpreted in a broad and flexible way).   
 
Best regards
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Jaeyoun Kim (Peter)
Gesendet: Sa 21.01.2006 02:09
An: Yulia Timofeeva
Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Betreff: Re: [Mmwg] IGF mechanism 5.0



This sounds good.

It might be a compromise solution for individuals to participate in IGF.


Regards,
Jaeyoun Kim (Peter)

On 1/21/06, Yulia Timofeeva <airetg at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually it could develop in a workable solution. Since many parties are
> reluctant to see individuals participating as "individuals" we could think
> of some special name for them ("experts" or something else) so that it would
> be clear for everyone that it's not just any person from the street.
> Then of course we have to offer some criteria or procedure to make sure that
> the person deserves the title.
>
> Yulia
>
>
>
>
> On 1/20/06, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 20 jan 2006, at 16.27, Danny Younger wrote:
> >
> > > As a way to bridge the gap between our positions,
> > > would you perhaps feel more comfortable creating an
> > > accreditation category for known "experts" that would
> > > allow such contributors to pass readily through the
> > > front door?
> >
> > i tend to support the idea of enabling individuals to participate.
> > but i have an issue with figuring out how one defines, identifies and
> > accredits 'experts' and would not be happy to see it limited to experts.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mmwg mailing list
> > mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
mmwg mailing list
mmwg at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg