[governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups

[Norbert Bollow]

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 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?  Do we need permission? 
> Why?  It's our IGF, after all.

I don't see how the ECTF proposal could reasonably be described as
being "a working group", but it could be positioned as adding to
the IGF a mechanism to have working groups that make recommendations.
(These working groups and recommendations just have the handicap of
being, at least initially, not officially part of the IGF, just built
around it, to provide functionality which is currently missing.)

My feeling is however that such a "let's hack the IGF" positioning
would tend to make the ECTF proposal less attractive to the key
stakeholder category that we need to convince of whatever we want to
make happen in the direction of enhanced cooperation and a more
fruitful IGF: governments.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t