[governance] MS Forum proposal of WGIG [was: Caucus processcomment]

[Lee McKnight]

As usual I am short on time, but here's an even shorter tutorial: 

DO NOT say we are building on t he UN ICTF for the forum even if we
are, as that gets us dragged into various UN internal battles which are
not our business.

Second, in my opinion, prescribing a very detailed Forum structure now
is another mistake to avoid, since that sets up a big fat target, main
objective here is to get somnething going that is lightweight and
flexible and can evolve over time.   

Proposing a mixed funding model in which multi-stakeholders can
contribute to costs on a voluntary basis would have a better shot of
slipping past the objectors. Something closer to the US national academy
model might fly, ie with a UN seal of approval instead of the US, and
with a chance for UN appropriations but no guarantees; and with
corporations and foundations free to back either specific projects or
functions as they see fit and as the Forum can persuade them is
worthwhile.  That still means a very thin secrtariat, perhaps seconded
and funded by national governments, or firms, or NGOs, who still are
responsible for their $$, with most all the real work done by volunteers
honored to be invited to volunteer their time.  And happy if their
travel costs are covered. (Gee, sounds sort of like the UN ICTF - but of
course not! ; )

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 08/08/05 2:03 PM >>>


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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance