AW: [Mmwg] IGF mechanism 5.0

[Vittorio Bertola]

Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto:
> I fully agree. Insofar it is also dangerous to design the IGF as a
> "membership forum". There shziuld be no Forum members, the forum
> should be an open plattform, open to anybody who is "concerned".  For
> practical reasons, you need an accreditation / registration
> procedure. The WGIG open consultations had a rather flexible
> procedure, Thus should be taken as the model for the IGF. w

I agree as well. However, I would like to avoid the situation where you 
have this big assembly of people, but no means of drawing conclusions 
other than the Geneva style (i.e. people discuss for two days and then, 
30 minutes before the end of the last day, the Chairman pops up on the 
screen a document of "conclusions" that was written the week before).

This is why I think that having a clear decision making mechanism, 
whatever it is, is of vital importance. But since I do not want to 
overload the plenary and working groups with all the formalities and 
accreditations that are necessary to that purpose, I would move that to 
a separate body - that's the reason for proposing a leading group.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...