AW: [Mmwg] IGF mechanism 5.0

[Jacqueline Morris]

I would like individuals to participate in the most flexible way. Having to
be part of an academic or technical group would leave out many people who
participated and were very valuable in WSIS (accreditation there was via the
"back door" for some  - I include myself here, as I had to beg accreditation
from several organisations over the years - whoever was willing to send in
the form on my behalf)
WGIG accreditation was a bit more flexible.
My first concept of the Forum from the days of the WGIG discussions was that
it would be open to concerned stakeholders - individuals, business,
government, etc. Accreditation is necessary as an administrative thing, but
it should be more  administrative than anything else. I would hate to have a
group, person etc say - hey this issue is important to me and it will be
discussed at this Forum - I should go, but be told - no, you don't qualify.
By having a stake in the issue, the stakeholder should qualify to attend and
have a voice AND a vote. And this doesn't have to be static and fixed - if
another issue comes up and I'm not interested, I don't participate, and
someone else does. The whole concept is that it should be open to "people
off the street" if they are concerned about the issue!
I am also afraid about the balance of power concept. Why do organisations
have to have more power than individuals in this Forum? Are organisations
less likely to have private agendas?

My $0.02

Jacqueline

On 1/21/06, Luc Faubert <LFaubert at conceptum.ca> wrote:
>
> Version 5.0 allows everybody (govs, orgs [accredited or not] AND
> individuals) to participate in *working groups* and thus discuss and
> elaborate final text which makes up the resolutions that are submitted to
> the Plenary for voting. Sorry if this wasn't clear in the wording I used.
> Nobody is excluded from working groups except the Chair and the Secretariat
> (this way they can be called in as facilitators in case of deadlock).
>
> So only the Plenary is restricted to govs and accredited orgs and these
> guys only vote on resolutions; they can't change the text drafted by working
> groups. They can discuss, ask questions about the resolutions and express
> their opinion about them, but at one point the Chair calls the vote.
>
> Some of you have mentioned the idea of accrediting individuals or
> "experts". Is it because you really want individuals to participate in the
> Plenary and have the right to vote? If so, as Vittorio, I am wary about
> their vote overtaking the ORGs group. If people can't live without
> individuals having the right to vote in the Plenary (and I still don't see
> why this is absolutely necessary), the only way I see we could achieve this
> without compromising the balance of power in the ORGs group would be to put
> a cap on the accredited individuals/orgs ratio in the ORGs group.
>
> As for stakeholder categories, dividing the Plenary in just 2 groups and
> putting all orgs (business, CS, technical, academic, NGOs) in the same group
> eliminates the need to bother with stakeholder branding altogether.
>
>
> - Luc Faubert
> ISOC Québec
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>



--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060122/131a16ae/attachment.htm