AW: [Mmwg] IGF mechanism 5.0

[Vittorio Bertola]

Robert Guerra ha scritto:
> Wolfgang:
> 
> thanks for reminding us of para 33 :) If I recall well it was  
> formulated at PC3 (sept 05) and took some while to get agreement on  (I 
> remember, as was present in the subcommittee room...)

He was talking about the WGIG report, I think, not about the official 
WSIS agreements, which are the following (Tunis Agenda):

"36. We recognise the valuable contribution by the academic and 
technical communities within those stakeholder groups mentioned in para 
35 to the evolution, functioning and development of the Internet."

So it is very clear that the "fourth stakeholder" idea is unacceptable, 
but an "expert" category inside civil society might be accepted.

However, I do not like this solution. I think that the problem with 
Luc's scheme is that if you eliminate the leading group, then you have 
to put all decision making authority with the Plenary, and this in turn 
forces you to have strong accreditation procedures to verify who gets 
the right to vote, and to exclude or marginalize individuals to avoid 
them from marginalizing (in sheer number) the other stakeholders.

Paradoxically, one of the points in favour of the "Bureau" idea is that 
it would take away some of the heat from the Plenary and working groups, 
and allow them to be much more free and open. In particular, you confine 
all discussions on distribution of voting power (likely to be long and 
heated) to the structure of the Bureau, possibly without letting 
governments etc. realize that in practice it will be the working groups, 
where consensus is actually formed, to spin the forum in whichever 
direction.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...