[Mmwg] Reviewing the discussions

[Milton Mueller]

Vittorio:
These comments are quite clear now, thanks. 

Actually there is only one significant modification. You agree with my original proposal that UN SG appoints the initial Bureau (no difference here). And you agree with my initial proposal that the initially appointed Bureau later gets selected by its constituents, in a way determined by sectors. The only difference is that you want the Bureau to adopt documents, instead of the Plenary-Chair interactions -- and you don't like the word "Bureau" (let's call it the "Council," then, ok? ;-) 

I am strongly opposed to having the Bureau/Council adopt reports. I suspect Luc would be, too. That sets them up as a detached, free-standing group that would inevitably draft, modify and publish reports on their own. The point of investing time and energy in working groups and the Plenary would be seriously undermined. 

It is very much a WGIG model you propose. The Bureau/Council is just another WGIG. I would prefer something more open, more participatory, less susceptibly to domination by a small clique. 

>>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 1/25/2006 9:17 AM >>>
>In any case, my main modifications would be:
>- appointing WG Chairs and adopting documents falls within the mandate
>of the Bureau (I would rename it to something less bureaucratic,
>please!)



- initially, the Bureau is appointed by Annan with balanced
representation among the 3 stakeholder groups (WGIG-like)
- then, each of the groups comes up with proposals on how to select
future Bureau members, which are to be adopted by the Bureau
Is this clear enough?
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...