[governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

[Izumi AIZU]

I think IETF model may not work for the forum which
is "multistakeholder" and "inclusive", to facilitate or ensure
full participation from all stakeholders including those from
developing countries.

That requires more than "simple" secretariat I am afraid.

IETF has essentially simpler objective with similar, if not
the same, minded people, and the organization evolved
over time with less "political" bias.

The Forum is very different in nature. Depending solely
on "volunteers" may give more privileges to those who
have more resources and can afford to be volunteers.

And, who paid for IETF secretariat? And who is paying it now

That is another critical question.

And I don't think it could function well if it is "all virtual".

thanks,

izumi

At 16:52 05/08/13 -0400, Avri Doria wrote:

>On 13 aug 2005, at 15.14, McTim wrote:
>
>
> > The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
> > hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.
> >
> >>
>
>
>well sort of.  there has been a secretariat for years of several
>people who do everything from planning meeting logistics, posting
>documents to the draft directory, and myriad other tasks that allow
>the volunteers to work on ietf issues.  around 5-6 people for a while
>now.
>
>and that is sort of what i see a secretariat as doing, allowing the
>other folks to volunteer to do work,  i.e. facilitation.  but do
>think there has to be a small group doing this full time as a job.
>
>a.


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