[Civil Society eye witnesses report: Mechanism/framework for Internet Governance:]
Canada's proposal presented morning of Nov 14 in subcommittee A:
Canada, Australia and (likely) USA support this Forum idea as a way to resolve the gridlock on Internet Governance at wsis 2:

" The Forum should be focussed on capacity building and development. This
Forum:
1. should be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding
process to facilitate capacity building through the exchange of
information and best practices, to identify issues and make known its
findings, and to enhance awareness and build consensus and engagement;
2. should actively involve all stakeholders on an equal footing, and
benefit from their expertise and from that of experts engaged in
Internet governance, including those of the academic and scientific
communities;
3. should not replace existing arrangements, institutions or
organizations, but involve them and take advantage of their expertise;
4. should not be involved in the day-to-day or technical operations of
the Internet;
5. should contribute, through its discussions, to fostering the
security, stability and robustness of the Internet;
6. should encourage enabling environments that will promote further
diffusion and development of the Internet;
7. should make full use of the tools of the information society to
conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for
conferences and face-to-face meetings, and to create on-line resources
of lasting value; and
8. should be periodically reviewed to determine the need for its
continuation, recognizing the rapid development of technology and
institutions, but notionally should sunset after five years, pending the
conclusions of ongoing review."
===========================================

This Canada proposal has been dubbed the "development" model, because it stresses 'capacity building' instead of actual power or authority. Here are some objections to this model from Civil Society ( personal details removed):
Today at Wsis 2, in the break (Nov 14)
" We conveyed our concerns to Canada, that capacity building/
developmental aspect is very important, but the Forum should
deal with much broader issues. I think she (a lady from the
Industry Canada) took it seriously and sincerely.

Australia proposed that ISOC be in charge to facilitate
or organiez the Forum and its preparatory work, US and
some others (Canada) supported that. Others like Brazil
of course pushed UN.

I don't think they can reach consensus on ISOC to be
the host. "
AND
From the IG Civil society caucus " we all agree that the forum must have a broad mission covering all IG issues,
including but not limited to development, and we've said this loudly
earlier today (Nov 14). Also, almost all parties (EU, Likemindedgroup, even
Latin American countries I think, and I've heard Uruguay in favour of that)
support this, it's just US/Canada/Australia insisting on the
development-oriented forum.

Also, US and Canada have now started to push the idea that there's no
need for further involvement of the UN, it should be ISOC to organize
this forum and manage it. I see the point that ISOC supports the IETF
and so why shouldn't it support this thing as well, but I imagine we
might be opposed, isn't it? After all, ......this forum deserves the broad civil
society participation typical of the UN settings, rather than the
technical focus that characterizes ISOC (not mentioning its, well,
growingly embarrassing vicinity to the US Government - I think that
when you are a global organization and then the Bush administration picks
you as their trustee for what they define a vital resource, you should pose
yourself some questions)."