[Mmwg] March item to work on

[Luc Faubert]

Wolfgang,

Launching DGIGs is an initiative we have proposed in our latest statement. I wouldn't say this qualifies as a working model.

Although we now have some of the building blocks of a working model (Secratariat, PC, DGIGs) I still don't see the rules that will enable all of these blocks to work together. We can either let the Program Committee work them out alone or try to be proactive and come up with our set of rules (including, as you propose, a DGIG charter) that we can then submit to the PC as food for thought.

My point is that a lot remains to be done in defining how the IGF will work. At this point we're certainly one of the groups that has given it the most thought. Why not continue and propose a complete model?

-Luc Faubert
ISOC Québec
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
> Sent: 12 mars 2006 12:20
> To: Luc Faubert; jam at jacquelinemorris.com; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: AW: [Mmwg] March item to work on
> 
> Luc,
>  
> one "working model" we have proposed was to launch bottom up 
> discussion groups (DGIGs). 
> When we prepare our statement for the subjects - March 31 - 
> we could be more specific and propose already some items for 
> discussion. Probably it would be helüpful to draft a light 
> weight charter for a DGIG  
>  
> wolfgang
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Luc Faubert
> Gesendet: So 12.03.2006 18:12
> An: jam at jacquelinemorris.com; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Betreff: RE: [Mmwg] March item to work on
> 
> 
> My understanding was that we agreed to let the Governance 
> Caucus list deal with the themes issue and that the MMWG list 
> would concentrate on IGF modalities.
>  
> As I have stated earlier, our latest submission on the 
> composition of the Program Committee leaves many aspects of 
> the IGF working model unresolved. The IGF is still without a 
> complete working model that everybody agrees on. Isn't that 
> where this list could contribute something useful? Come up 
> with a well thought out working model that we could propose 
> to the Program Committee.
>  
> If that's not what we should be working on, what are we here for?
>  
> - Luc Faubert
> ISOC Québec
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org 
> [mailto:mmwg-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris
> 	Sent: 9 mars 2006 12:11
> 	To: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> 	Subject: [Mmwg] March item to work on
> 	
> 	
> 	Hi everyone
> 	Back again after the Carnival, and still alive!
> 	
> 	We have the March 31 deadline from Nitin re the topics 
> for the first IGF - 
> 	
> 	"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. "
> 	
> 	We know that some  would like the first issues to be 
> relatively non-controversial, like spam and such. Others are 
> more interested in the development aspects - access and cost, 
> availability etc. If the members of this group can post their 
> top 3 to the list, with reasons, we can work to condense and 
> finalise a submission soon (before many head to Wellington) 
> 	
> 	Looking forward to the submissions
> 	-- 
> 	Jacqueline Morris
> 	www.carnivalondenet.com
> 	T&T Music and videos online 
> 
>