[governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

[Avri Doria]

On 10 aug 2005, at 10.19, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Il giorno mer, 10-08-2005 alle 14:17 +0200, Jeanette Hofmann ha  
> scritto:
>
> Well, I didn't see much reaction (neither positive nor negative) to  
> the
> text I proposed.

some comment below.

>> - as an additional, initial list item of the forum mission:
>>
>> "a. Releasing non-binding recommendations developed by the forum  
>> or by
>> its working groups, either on substantive policy issues or on  
>> procedural
>> matters regarding Internet governance processes"
>>
>> - as an additional para:
>>
>> "The forum should have clear procedures for the selection of  
>> members of
>> an executive group, who would have the functions of facilitating
>> consensus, organizing work and working groups, and formally adopting
>> documents and recommendations. This executive group should be  
>> composed
>> by a balanced number of representatives of governments, the private
>> sector and civil society, self-selected by the respective  
>> constituencies
>> with open and transparent processes, who would act as individual  
>> experts."
>>
>> I know Avri disagreed on some of this, but could we discuss the  
>> matter?


I am not sure that the forum needs an executive.  i think a  
secretariat is enough to act as the facilitation that is the forum.   
i am against recommending a formal organization, and i think an  
executive is the base around which an organization starts to grow,.   
i don't think we need another organization, only a forum, as in a  
place/facilitation for discussions among the, all to many, existing  
organizations.



>> I would like to see my concern addressed, in the fact that either the
>> forum is effective and able to take decisions, or the status quo  
>> won't
>> change in practice, and we'll have lost a chance.

As you know i disagree with this.  If the discussion are real and if  
the current stakeholders participate, and if the reports that come  
out have merit, it will serve as the motivations that is hard to ignore.

i am totally against support for creating an organization with power  
over the existing mechanisms.  i also think it is impractical to ask  
for such as thing as none of the existing organizations would ever  
agree to such control.

>>
>> Generally speaking, it might be worth reaffirming the point (as per
>> Karen's forward some time ago) that we support Karklins' view of IG
>> follow-up as a separate item than WSIS follow-up, to be mainly dealt
>> with by the new forum. (I know this vision is shared also by some
>> goverments as well.)


this seems ok, as long as that forum is only a secretariat that  
brings together the stakeholders and is not another power unto itself.



a.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050810/e27fe919/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance