<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">I agree with Jean-Louis, Parminder and others that
we must see "Jeremy's" online survey as an informal tool to get a feel
for the ideas to be expressed in an IGC statement. Writing a
statistically valid survey is a lot of work and a long process, in my
opinion, not necessary in this case. I again suggest that those who
want to opine take the survey and use the text boxes or the email list
to express opinions not clearly stated in the survey, or to ask
questions if clarifications are needed.<br>
<br>
Jeremy, thanks for taking on this project. I look forward to your first
proposal for discussion on the topic. <br>
<br>
As soon the new year starts (tomorrow and on!!!) we can get moving on
other proposals, such as reviewing the membership (Parminder, Rui,
Antonio Medina, myself )<br>
<br>
The Web Page (Jeremy?)<br>
<br>
Voting and charter reviews (Paul? Craig? Fearghas?) others<br>
<br>
A statement of input to the IGF Secretariat before the Jan. 15 deadline
and/or for the OC (Jeremy, Fouad?)<br>
<br>
GAID discussion (Michael G and others)<br>
<br>
Other topics to continue, such as improving the IGC working format.<br>
<br>
I look forward to an exciting and productive 2010 working with all of
you. Please do join the discussion to make sure we hear all voices.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
Ginger<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4B3C6C79.6020209@itforchange.net" type="cite"><br>
Hi All
<br>
<br>
While the survey may or may not provide useful inputs for IGC's
position on IGF reform, we should in any case discuss the issue here on
the list so that the coordinators can attempt a consensus position.
<br>
<br>
I do think that, in the formal consultation process at Sharm, IGC
failed to provide a comprehensive set of suggestions, even the ones
which we have often discussed in past and adopted by consensus. We may
still have a chance of putting our views forward, now through the
channel of government reps that may be on the lookout for possible good
concrete suggestion for IGF reform, which may be taken up when the
resolution/ discussion on IGF continuation finally comes up at the UN
general assembly or at the CSTD (there is a confusion at this stage how
the process will go forward).
<br>
<br>
While seeking to trigger a discussion on this subject after Sharm I had
pointed to fact that many among us are focusing on just one thing -
the danger that ITU may take over the IGF, (or even that the IGF may be
closed down), and consequently not engaging as much as we should to
propose real improvements in the IGF. Apparently, the view is that if
we breathe but one word on possible improvements, it may be taken as
statement of failure of the IGF and be used by those keen on shutting
down the IGF, or seeking an ITU take over of it.
<br>
<br>
One proof that these fears are hugely exaggerated, and even
diversionary, can be found in the fact that recently a UN general
assembly resolution for more stable public/ UN funding for the IGF
(which some groups tend to equate with possible ITU takeover) was shot
down, and another one calling for more voluntary contributions to the
trust fund (status quoist) was adopted. One can clearly see here who
calls the shots and which way the wind is blowing.
<br>
<br>
So lets relax our exaggerated caution, and boldly seek IGF reform of
the kind we have asked for over the years, while there could also be
new options. Thematic working groups, inter-sessional programs, some
possibilities of clear advisory outcomes etc may be some things we have
earlier alluded to. I personally think that we should also seek a
clearer role for the MAG, and more agenda setting power for it,
including of developing recommendations and advices as per the IGF
mandate based on the proceedings of the IGF and other WGs etc. There
could be other possibilities, but we need to discuss them, and maybe
speak out at Feb meeting (even if thats not the agenda) to catch the
ear of some gov reps, and also pass our views on directly to interested
gov reps.
<br>
<br>
Have a great last day of 2009, and wake up to a hopeful and fruitful
2010!
<br>
<br>
Parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>