I would like individuals to participate in the most flexible way.
Having to be part of an academic or technical group would leave out
many people who participated and were very valuable in WSIS
(accreditation there was via the "back door" for some - I include
myself here, as I had to beg accreditation from several organisations
over the years - whoever was willing to send in the form on my behalf)<br>
WGIG accreditation was a bit more flexible.<br>
My first concept of the Forum from the days of the WGIG discussions was
that it would be open to concerned stakeholders - individuals,
business, government, etc. Accreditation is necessary as an
administrative thing, but it should be more administrative than
anything else. I would hate to have a group, person etc say - hey this
issue is important to me and it will be discussed at this Forum - I
should go, but be told - no, you don't qualify. By having a stake in
the issue, the stakeholder should qualify to attend and have a voice
AND a vote. And this doesn't have to be static and fixed - if another
issue comes up and I'm not interested, I don't participate, and someone
else does. The whole concept is that it should be open to "people off
the street" if they are concerned about the issue!<br>
I am also afraid about the balance of power concept. Why do
organisations have to have more power than individuals in this Forum?
Are organisations less likely to have private agendas? <br>
<br>
My $0.02<br>
<br>
Jacqueline<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/21/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Luc Faubert</b> <<a href="mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca">LFaubert@conceptum.ca</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Version
5.0 allows everybody (govs, orgs [accredited or not] AND individuals)
to participate in *working groups* and thus discuss and elaborate final
text which makes up the resolutions that are submitted to the Plenary
for voting. Sorry if this wasn't clear in the wording I used. Nobody is
excluded from working groups except the Chair and the Secretariat (this
way they can be called in as facilitators in case of deadlock).<br><br>So
only the Plenary is restricted to govs and accredited orgs and these
guys only vote on resolutions; they can't change the text drafted by
working groups. They can discuss, ask questions about the resolutions
and express their opinion about them, but at one point the Chair calls
the vote.<br><br>Some of you have mentioned the idea of accrediting
individuals or "experts". Is it because you really want individuals to
participate in the Plenary and have the right to vote? If so, as
Vittorio, I am wary about their vote overtaking the ORGs group. If
people can't live without individuals having the right to vote in the
Plenary (and I still don't see why this is absolutely necessary), the
only way I see we could achieve this without compromising the balance
of power in the ORGs group would be to put a cap on the accredited
individuals/orgs ratio in the ORGs group.<br><br>As for stakeholder
categories, dividing the Plenary in just 2 groups and putting all orgs
(business, CS, technical, academic, NGOs) in the same group eliminates
the need to bother with stakeholder branding altogether.<br><br><br>- Luc Faubert<br>ISOC Québec<br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>mmwg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mmwg@wsis-cs.org">
mmwg@wsis-cs.org</a><br><a href="http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg">http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Jacqueline Morris
<br><a href="http://www.carnivalondenet.com">www.carnivalondenet.com</a><br>T&T Music and videos online