<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [Mmwg] adopting reports</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText84167 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 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 color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 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>
</BODY>
</HTML>