<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">pl give at least 24 hours to comment. not
possible to comment in 6 hours. parminder </font><br>
<br>
On Friday 11 March 2011 09:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1299817221.12623.260.camel@terminus-Aspire-L320"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Here is a summary of the comments that have been made on our draft
statement at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/">http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/</a>, and the suggested
changes I'll be making to the statement in response. Due to the timing
of the deadline, I have no choice but to put the statement to a
consensus call later today, so if you have any other comments, please
make them immediately.
PARA 1: A grammatical change suggested by Norbert; no issue with this.
PARA 2: McTim suggests we get more specific about the IGF's lack of
progress in fulfilling paras 72(b) and 72(c) of the Tunis Agenda
(facilitating discourse and interfacing). I suggest the simplest way to
do this is just by adding "We give some recommendations on how the IGF
could do this in sections 2 and 5 below."
PARA 4: Norbert makes a similar remark about our observations on paras
72(e) and 72(g) (IG4D and recommendations). Again, the best way to deal
with this is to forward-reference: "Our suggestions for how the IGF
might make better progress in these areas follow in sections 3 and 4
respectively."
PARA 11: McTim and Izumi said we are a bit too ambitious here. McTim
took objection to suggesting that we "integrate the IGF's outcomes into
the programmes of other institutions". So I propose we say "increase
the visibility of the IGF's outcomes within other institutions". Izumi
didn't want to suggest rapporteurs who would "act as a proactive conduit
for feedback from those institutions". So I suggest "receive feedback
from those institutions" instead.
So, I will prepare an online poll to gauge consensus on the statement as
it stands with the above amendments. If possible, please provide any
further comments (either here on the list or on the Web site) BEFORE I
post the poll, ie. within the next six hours or so.
Thanks!
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>