<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [Mmwg] adopting reports</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=766571318-26012006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Hi
Luc,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=766571318-26012006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=766571318-26012006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=766571318-26012006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=766571318-26012006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">Best,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=766571318-26012006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=766571318-26012006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">BD</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=766571318-26012006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"></P><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"></SPAN></DIV><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Luc Faubert
[mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:12
PM<BR><B>To:</B> William Drake; Milton Mueller;
mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Mmwg] adopting
reports<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText84167 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Maybe we've reached a point where we can
do without the Plenary as well?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Have the WGs do all the work
:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2> - research and report,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2> - final (short) policy
text,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2> - rough consensus,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2> - that's it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Luc Faubert</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>ISOC Québec</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
mmwg-bounces+lfaubert=conceptum.ca@wsis-cs.org on behalf of William
Drake<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thu 2006-01-26 12:12<BR><B>To:</B> Milton Mueller;
mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Mmwg] adopting
reports<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>MM,<BR><BR>> I think what both Luc and I had in mind was a
process whereby a<BR>> WG plunks a report on the table, gets it on the
agenda, and then<BR>> Plenary reacts to it. They do not "edit" it, they do
not go<BR>> through it line by line, etc. They do not wordsmith.
They<BR>> deliberate. They discuss what is missing, what is agreeable
and<BR>> disagreeable, what is misinterpreted, etc. If there is no
rough<BR>> consensus on publication the WG has to make changes. And
subsets<BR>> of Plenary could submit proposals for specific changes to the
WG.<BR><BR>I don't see why the Plenary has to approve it. If it's a
significant piece<BR>of work, more than ten pages, that would probably be
impossible, especially<BR>in the time frame. It takes the OECD like a
half year to clear even the<BR>cafeteria menu for public distribution, and
this would be much bigger.<BR>That's why I suggest that WG reports be
background 'for information' and you<BR>have a separate, short, principles and
recs type doc expressing collective<BR>sentiment on the topic for approval by
the plenary.<BR><BR>> >I think a likely model will be the ITU's World
Telecom Policy Forums<BR>> >www.itu.int/osg/spu/wtpf/.<BR>><BR>>
But based on your description, this model seems to presupposed<BR>> higher
levels of funding than are realistic for the Forum.<BR><BR>The WTPFs are a
model in that they separate the report (in this case by<BR>staff) and the
short agreed doc and the debate focuses only on the latter.<BR>That doesn't
necessarily presume that WG's or the IGF secretariat are<BR>spending a bunch
of cash on the report in the same manner that ITU does in<BR>paying staff to
write.<BR><BR>BD<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>mmwg
mailing list<BR>mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><A
href="http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg">http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>