<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>VS: VS: [Mmwg] IGF Input</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText95310 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>In order to keep things
simple, why not create a WG for the "Facilitation" task? This obviates the need
for another structure and, WGs being open to all, opens up the
"facilitation" process.</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@wsis-cs.org on behalf of
Wolfgang Kleinwächter<BR><B>Sent:</B> Fri 2006-02-24 10:55<BR><B>To:</B> Milton
Mueller; avri@psg.com; mmwg@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> VS: VS: [Mmwg] IGF
Input<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter<BR>>Could we agree to
propose in the statement<BR>>A. a "Programme Committee" and<BR>>B. (at a
later stage) a "Facilitation Group".<BR>><BR>>A would be responsible to
prepare the F2F event<BR>>B would be responsible to facilitate the discussion
within the process, >that is between the big F2F
event.<BR><BR>Mitlon.<BR><BR>Are they different groups completely? If so, I
think it's too complicated and we lack to resources and bandwidth to carry it
out.<BR><BR>Wolfgang<BR>The idea is "think big, start small, move fast". The PC
is the small start. There is no time and it would be confusing indeed to discuss
now two bodies. Lets concentrate to prepare IGF I. But in the process - moving
fast - we will recognize, as it has been said by several contributors, there is
something more than only to decide on the programme of a forum. I feel
opposition on the list against a "Council" or a "Steering Committee" (which I
share) but I would go along with Avri´s "Facilitation" proposal. I have labeled
it "Group" because this is the most neutral terminology. Not a decision making
body but equipped with some competences - i.a. the approval of e-IGWGs. In
our statement we could say that we - at this stage - prefere to concentrate on a
PC but would eoncourge more creative thininkg about the formation of a
"Facilitation Group" on the way to Athens which could be established during the
IGF I.<BR><BR>Wolfgang:<BR>>Criteria for recognition of e-IGWGs could
be<BR><BR>Milton:<BR>This is outside the scope of the Feb. 28 deadline, so can
we drop it?<BR><BR>Wolfgang:<BR>Yes, but we should mention the basic idea and
the principle. Not to be specific.<BR>BTW, the dateline for the second question
of Nitin (themes) is mARCH 31, 2006. so let´s first things do
first.<BR><BR>w<BR><BR><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>