[governance] MS Forum proposal of WGIG [was: Caucus process comment]

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Milton Mueller wrote:
> Jeanette:
> Thanks for keeping this going. I guess we are all exhausted (I know I
> am) or on vacation (I wish) but it seems dangerous to be getting so
> close to Prepcom 3 with no specific plans. 

Yes, as usual we are getting late. One of the concrete issues that 
really needs our combined wisdom is the forum: structure, tasks and 
funding.
> 
> The problem with a model is that it carries baggage with it that may
> not be related to the merits of the proposal. E.g., the UN ICT TF has
> some weaknesses as well as positive aspects. These were discussed at
> some length in the "Global Alliance" discussions. Some have expressed
> concern about the MS Forum proposal of WGIG getting to close to the UN
> ICT TF Global Allience discussions.

Perhaps the people on this list who have followed this debate could 
share their insights with the rest of us? Is there any link between the 
forum proposal and the follow up discussion surrounding the UN ICT TF, 
and what would be good or bad about this?


> I am somewhat surprised by your apparent willingness to accept a new
> Forum that has no funding commitment from govts. I think that is a
> recipe for failure. Agree with McIver that it will have a major impact
> on representation (but also know that subsidized representation brings
> its own distortions). Supporters of the Forum idea need to step up here
> and clarify what they have in mind and how they think the role for the
> Forum they outlined can best be funded.

Actually, I havn't formed much of an opinion on these issues yet. 
However, I think waiting for governments to commit themselves to fund 
such a forum can easily turn into a failure too. Somehow I doubt that
governments take the forum seriously enough to accept additional funding
obligations. My guess is that the forum will only be created if the 
governments don't _have_ to pay. Government funding might be achieved 
later should it turn out that such a Forum does vital things no other 
organization can do. Is that too pessimistic?

jeanette
> 
> 
>>>>Bill McIver <Bill.McIver at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> 08/05/05 4:06 PM >>>
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> 
>>[...]
>> 
>>
> 
> 
>>Milton mentioned funding. I remember Wolfgang saying that we should
> 
> not 
> 
>>assume any institutional funding, and that all participants need to
> 
> come 
> 
>>up with their own resources. 
>>
> 
> How would we ensure participation from constituencies that have
> limited funding?
> 
> 
>>Other people thought the forum should be 
>>able to commission research projects and build up competence similar
> 
> to 
> 
>>what the OECD does. It seems clear that the funding more or less 
>>determines what such a forum can do.
>> 
>>
> 
> It also determines who is represented.
> 
> 
>>jeanette
>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance