<html>
<body>
<font size=3>hi<br><br>
quote from meryem: <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">So the only way to avoid the
"MAG" refusing this workshop on <br>
"objective" criteria related to lack of MS-sponsorship would
indeed <br>
be to ask the secretariat to co-sponsor this workshop as part of a
<br>
sane reflexive exercise (and probably as a good way to awake the UN
<br>
Secretary-General and show him that he should decide something
<br>
regarding IGF). And why not replacing this discussion in the whole
<br>
framework of the UN reform started in 1997? After all, Nitin Desai
<br>
himself was, from 1998 to 2003, an advisory board member of UNFIP,
<br>
one of the instruments set up in the context of this reform, that I
<br>
mentioned in a previous message discussing the IGF MS funding
proposal.</blockquote><br>
</font>i don't see why the workshop proposal would be rejected - this is
far less contraversial than critical internet resources, and that's been
taken up by the IGF - and in fact i think it would be a very useful
contribution, and that it would seen to be so?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>This would make
this proposal a very interesting workshop. And, if <br>
"IGF's role and mandate" is likely to frighten, including
members of <br>
this caucus, we could find a "safer" title and description for
it.</blockquote><br>
</font>i also don't see why that title should frighten anyone - it's
straight from an intergovernmentally negotiated text ;) and even if
so, no reason not to proceed<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>The question
remains: would members of this caucus agree that its <br>
coordinators approach the secretariat to discuss such a
proposal.</blockquote><br>
i'm sorry if i've missed something here.. is the intent to approach
the IGF secretariat to guage whether this is something that might be
interesting? and then proceed? if people thanks that's useful, why
not?<br><br>
otherwise, it's more who would be involved in developing the workshop
proposal<br><br>
APC haven't yet finalised ideas for workshop proposals, and i couldn't
say yet to what extend, if any, we could help with this proposal.. but we
made a substantial comment on the IGF role and mandate (more mandate than
role) during the open consultation (below) and clearly have an interest
in participating in activities that would contribute to this..<br><br>
karen<br><br>
<br>
</font><font size=2>APC feels that themes and issues should be mapped to
some of the requirements of paragraph 72 a. to k. each year. Naturally,
it is not possible to cover all themes and issues or all of the
requirements of paragraph 72. But each year a different combination and
theme/issue could be addressed in the plenary sessions, emerging issues
and best practices fora. This would ensure that the IGF does not simply
operate as a space for policy dialogue and panel discussions but that it
attends to other requirements of its mandate in an innovative
way.<br><br>
By way of illustration, the following combinations of
theme/issue/practice, session and paragraph 72 requirements could be
worth considering under the Access, and Emerging issues
themes.</font><font size=3>...<br><br>
[ more under </font><font size=2><b>2. Recommendation on plenary and
emerging issues sessions</b></font><font size=3> -
<a href="http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5067091" eudora="autourl">
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5067091</a><br><br>
<br><br>
</font></body>
<br>
</html>