<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jul 17, 2012, at 12:41 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">So, let's see if there isn't room to compromise. What if the ECTF were repositioned as *being* a working group of the IGF, notwithstanding that nobody has given permission for such a thing? </span></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm all for meaningful compromises in principle, but in this case I don't understand what it would mean in practice. The ECTF proposal is to create "a new governance forum", with a host country agreement and a strong secretariat with sanctioning abilities that is curiously located in Zurich and voluntarily funded by companies and governments (an opportunity to repeat the IGF fiscal follies, oh joy), under which one could convene working groups. How could that superstructure for convening working groups be a working group? Are you just trying to get your Bureau again, Jeremy? ;-)</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "> Do we need permission? Why? It's our IGF, after all.</span></blockquote></div><br><div>I imagine you're being ironic here. Anyway, one can declare a DC pretty easily, but a UN WG carries with it a whole set operational goodies (appointment by higher authority, top down standardized rules on composition procedures outcomes etc) that makes some governments value them and other actors distrust them. So the challenge would be to see whether it's possible to define lighter mechanisms, e.g. like those used in a certain multistakeholder body, that could assess and foster dialogue on pressing issues and reflect multiple viewpoints as 'outcomes' and yet still attract governments because of the UN linked setting and authorization modalities. There's no procedure now for doing this in the IGF. I imagine Avri would argue the MAG can set them, but this is not obvious to me, and anyway that seems a bit cart before the horse—the first task would be to outline a vision for why WGs would be useful and see if those who've opposed it full stop could be persuaded to consider reconsidering, given the alternatives.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill </div></body></html>