[Mmwg] Reviewing the discussions

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, I agree with Avri.

Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I tend to agree that the bureau should not be the one adopting  reports, 

The bureau cannot be the body that adopts reports or political 
statements. This would not be acceptable from the governments' point of 
view.
Still, we should try to limit the plenary's decision making burden. As 
Vittorio rightly pointed out, plenary decisions may lead to all sorts of
horse trading and other things we don't want.

Perhaps we should take into consideration that the first obstacle in the 
consensus process would be not the plenary but the working group. The 
working group is the first entity that has to agree on a report. If 
working groups are generally seen as a potential obstacle, a report 
would already gain some recognition and authority if a working group has 
agreed upon it. A plenary's blessing would then be a second step a 
working group may or may not try to get. In other words, my suggestion 
would be that not every report has to be approved by the plenary in 
order to have some impact.

jeanette

> or perhaps i mean to say not the only one.  I think they  should 
> initiate and perhaps manage the formation of working [groups,  teams, 
> parties  ...].  i do think there needs to be a way for the  plenary to 
> review and consent to any final documents.  this process  can perhaps be 
> overseen by the bureau, though maybe it only needs to  be coordinated by 
> the secretariat.
> 
> btw, i think to avoid confusion, we might want to call it a bureau in  
> our work, since that is called out in the tunis agenda.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 25 jan 2006, at 10.11, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
>> 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...
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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