<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] IGF Input</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText25287 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Robert,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>All groups overlap. We've seen people from
all houses sitting in national delegations seats. Overlaps are common: Gov
& Biz, Gov & T, Biz & T, A & CS, CS and Biz. People
will choose their house when they decide to run as Committee
member.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>So it becomes a question of balance between
all houses in the Committee. My proposition a while back was to have
govs on one side and everybody else on the other, but this
seems unrealistic at this point.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>If we're going to have houses, we need one
for T&A. Otherwise, it's like letting gov reps discuss policy for bridge
structures without engineers participating. Just makes no sense. This is
not a new idea. It has been voiced by many from all houses in both WSIS and IGF,
including our Canadian government -- and ISOC of course. I think it'll
fly,</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 dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> mmwg-bounces@wsis-cs.org on behalf of
Robert Guerra<BR><B>Sent:</B> Fri 2006-02-24 10:21<BR><B>To:</B>
mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Mmwg] IGF Input<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Luc Faubert wrote:<BR>> Sorry Avri and all. Should've been
"Gov, Biz, CS and T&A".<BR>> <BR>> T&A is Technical and
Academic.<BR>> <BR>> You're right about the priorities. We have
enough on our hands now,<BR>><BR><BR>Thought agree with the groups, it does
beg the question - how does one<BR>in CS know if they are in the "CS" group, or
the Technical and Academic<BR>group.<BR><BR>There is an issue of potential
"double representation" that will have to<BR>be worked out at some
point..<BR><BR>regards<BR><BR>Robert<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>