[Mmwg] IGF Input II

[Luc Faubert]

I absolutely agree with Adam. But allow me to step away from the themes question for a moment and consider what, as a whole, the IGF could become.
 
Imagine we have working groups concentrating each on one of an unlimited set of themes. Most of the themes allow for unlimited discussion because they are complex issues and because the microcosm they are working on evolves. Many of the working groups would thus have to be ongoing, and they could periodically output finite sets of recommendations for the IGF plenary to discuss and reach--or not reach--consensus on. The discrete sets of recommendations could be a way to break down a working group's ongoing work on a theme into manageable packets.
 
With multiple WGs working on themes in parallel, the restraining forces on the quantity of WGs would be:

*	
	the capacity for interested people to participate in all (most probably won't want to do that anyway) and
*	
	the plenary's capacity to process WG recommendations (which could be multiplied if the plenary could be persuaded to work online [obviously a hard sell]).

Is this a viable model?
 
BTW, one of the themes that hasn't been mentioned much during the consultations is the object of this WG: the global working model for the IGF. Many aspects of the model will remain open after the Program Committee dust settles and delegating their resolution to the PC+Chair+Secratariat triumvirate seems risky to me.
 
One way to provide more input on our vision of the IGF working model could be to serve our statement on the themes question with a side dish of modalities.
 
 
- Luc Faubert
ISOC Québec
 

________________________________

From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org on behalf of Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)
Sent: Wed 2006-03-01 12:26
To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [Mmwg] IGF Input II


Wolfgang, thanks to you and Jackie for your work on the first statement.

Next:  we should begin by saying we *do not* accept the idea that the forum should consider just three issues (this year... I think at one point Mr. Desai said there would be chance for another three next year -- or something similar to that. Terrible.)  

Very clear that this idea of three issues is not in keeping with the mandate of the IGF: para 72 absolutely does not limit the number of issues IGF should consider, on contrary it calls on the forum to consider a broad range of issues and undertake a wide range of tasks/functions < http://www.intgovforum.org/about.htm>.  

Can understand why Mr. Desai would like to limit the number (it is convenient from a practical/organizational point of view) but any such limitation is not what governments asked for, and (with the greatest of respect :-) it's not Mr. Desai's job to redefine the Forum's mandate. 

Thanks,

Adam



On 3/2/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > wrote: 

	Dear List,
	
	first of all in Jackie and I would thank all of you who participated in the discussion which finaly enabled us to present an IGF Input Statement on the "Programme Committee". We collected a lot of good ideas and we are also happy to have experienced that regardless of different approaches and opinions we were able to find common language on difficult issues. And we learned once again that here is something like the "wisdom of the group" which very often is more balanced than an individual intervention. So once again thanks for the cooperation. And lets hope that our input will have some impact. 
	
	But as as you know, "after the statement is before the statement", we have to start a new round of discussion with regard to question 2.
	
	Here is the challenge:
	
	"Mr. Nitin Desai, the Secretary-General's Special Adviser for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) who chaired the meeting, invited participants to reflect on the following questions: Which public policy issues the first meeting of the IGF should address. 
	All stakeholders are invited to submit their views on these question.
	Please let us know what your views are on:
	Public policy issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF.
	Please let us know your top three choices and give a short explanation on the reasons for your choices by 31 March 2006". 
	
	How we proceed? I propose that all of us send their "top three" with short explanations and than we will find out, which subjects has a majority. This time is not voting for people but voting for subjects .-)))) 
	
	Best regards
	
	Jackie & Wolfie
	
	
	
	_______________________________________________
	mmwg mailing list
	mmwg at wsis-cs.org
	http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
	




-- 
Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>  
Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please reply to  < ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks! 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/attachments/20060301/5946eebf/attachment-0001.html