[Mmwg] adopting reports

[William Drake]

RE: [Mmwg] adopting reportsHi Luc,

Not a chance in hell.  Not at all what is envisaged.  And they are not going to work primarily online, either.  Some WGs, depending on their composition, might opt to do so, but you cannot *require* government ministry people, or even private sector people, to sit around e-chatting with CS types, they'd never agree to it.  We're merging models here, old world and new.

Best,

BD



-----Original Message-----
From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert at conceptum.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:12 PM
To: William Drake; Milton Mueller; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: [Mmwg] adopting reports


  Maybe we've reached a point where we can do without the Plenary as well?

  Have the WGs do all the work :
   - research and report,
   - final (short) policy text,
   - rough consensus,
   - that's it.


  - Luc Faubert
  ISOC Québec


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: mmwg-bounces+lfaubert=conceptum.ca at wsis-cs.org on behalf of William Drake
  Sent: Thu 2006-01-26 12:12
  To: Milton Mueller; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
  Subject: RE: [Mmwg] adopting reports


  MM,

  > I think what both Luc and I had in mind was a process whereby a
  > WG plunks a report on the table, gets it on the agenda, and then
  > Plenary reacts to it. They do not "edit" it, they do not go
  > through it line by line, etc. They do not wordsmith. They
  > deliberate. They discuss what is missing, what is agreeable and
  > disagreeable, what is misinterpreted, etc. If there is no rough
  > consensus on publication the WG has to make changes. And subsets
  > of Plenary could submit proposals for specific changes to the WG.

  I don't see why the Plenary has to approve it.  If it's a significant piece
  of work, more than ten pages, that would probably be impossible, especially
  in the time frame.  It takes the OECD like a half year to clear even the
  cafeteria menu for public distribution, and this would be much bigger.
  That's why I suggest that WG reports be background 'for information' and you
  have a separate, short, principles and recs type doc expressing collective
  sentiment on the topic for approval by the plenary.

  > >I think a likely model will be the ITU's World Telecom Policy Forums
  > >www.itu.int/osg/spu/wtpf/.
  >
  > But based on your description, this model seems to presupposed
  > higher levels of funding than are realistic for the Forum.

  The WTPFs are a model in that they separate the report (in this case by
  staff) and the short agreed doc and the debate focuses only on the latter.
  That doesn't necessarily presume that WG's or the IGF secretariat are
  spending a bunch of cash on the report in the same manner that ITU does in
  paying staff to write.

  BD


  _______________________________________________
  mmwg mailing list
  mmwg at wsis-cs.org
  http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060126/3086c5c0/attachment-0001.htm