[governance] Caucus process comment

[Ian Peter]

Hi Adam,

I am happy with the drafts as presented being the basis for a consolidated
comment from CS. You may however wish to combine the documents into one
statement in the changed circumstances.

Ian Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2005 2:55 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: jeanette at wz-berlin.de
Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus process comment

It would be wonderful to always have 4 weeks or more, but as Avri and 
Jacqueline have noted we didn't have that luxury from July 14 when 
the WGIG report was released to July 18 when the meeting discussing 
the report was held. I think it was made quite clear that we felt we 
had to respond, and that everyone did their best to draft as openly 
and fairly as circumstances allowed.

Now we have a little more time. The initial response of the caucus 
has been made. If we want to submit a revised statement for precom3 
we have until August 15.  Two weeks to further develop the initial 
response.

Is that OK?  Note, this deadline was set by the president of the prepcom.

The final version of our initial response is attached.  Do we want to 
use this as a basis of our contribution to prepcom3, or start again?

Could we please begin discussing how we will respond for prepcom.

Ronda, Izumi: perhaps you could explain why you think "netizen" 
should be included and how. It's become clear that netizen means much 
more than just "user", that's why it didn't make it into the final 
version of the initial response.

Vittorio: you had issues, could you please try to draft any changes.

Understand about the desirability of using open source, but don't 
think we'll get everyone to change applications in the next week or 
so. Anyone wishing to use track changes, could you save in RTF.  I 
believe that's the standard format we've been using in civil society 
when drafting.  Otherwise use text and explain what sections you're 
trying to change.

Many thanks,

Adam (speaking also for Jeanette)




At 4:51 PM -0400 7/27/05, avri doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I agree with this.  while I think we should follow maximally open
>process for email based decisions, including 4 week review periods, and
>perhaps a form of voting (if we can figure out how to do that fairly),
>i think we need a different process for decisions that need to me made
>during a prepcom or similar event.
>
>and while it would be good to have all our statements ready a month in
>advance for process, i don't think it is possible to anticipate the
>needs that far in advance.
>
>a.
>
>On 27 jul 2005, at 12.30, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
>
>>  Very useful links, but i have one concern:
>>  Will this process include responses and so forth at the Prepcom and
>>  other negotiating bodies? Cause if so, then the period of comment to
>>  the list may have to be something like 4 hours rather than 4 weeks.
>>  Unless a different mechanism is proposed for these situations - like a
>>  general agreement on issues and then give a mandate to the team onsite
>>  and online to simply make statements on behalf of the Caucus without
>>  the full consultation, as the timeframe for these comments is very
>>  short - just like the last consultation with the WGIG report (4 days)
>>  in Prepcom it is sometimes less than 4 hours to develop a
>>  comment/response.
>>  Jacqueline
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005
 
    

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 1/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance