[governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

[Adam Peake]

Bill thanks.

Pretty much agree with everything you've suggested. Please you seem 
to have found a solution to keeping netizen.  I was just about to 
send my own edit document that suggested deleting it!  But I'm OK 
with 29/30 as you combined them.

Only commenting on major changes, some minor edits in the document.

Para 4. I am Ok with the history comment to stay, but moved to the 
end of paragraph. Ambivalent.

Something to keep in mind: we hope to have chance to make specific 
comments during prepcom. On some issues we can't agree detail on now, 
having a general place holder there is a good start. If we don't hear 
back with specific text on FOSS, para 26, this may be an example of 
something we can develop later in prepcom.

Para 10.  Agree with adding "either the WSIS or a future forum, if 
one is created."

Para 27.  Agree

Para 29 & 30. Agree

Para 37. Ian's comment on number of years the forum should be tried 
for - five is a very long time.  WGIG did a lot in 18 months. More 
than two and it looks  too permanent.

Para 41.  Can someone read carefully for repetition. Also, we are 
stating that the forum should be "lite" does this long list of 
functions start moving us to a more activist and powerful group?

Para 46. "accept inputs from the proposed global forum structure" 
No, not one of the functions in the list in 41.  This it should be 
deleted.

What is now para 48.  The editing away for north/south university 
partnerships is good. Thanks.  But I think "most notable through 
local university programs"  would be better as "for example through 
local university programs"

Edit Para 52 to read "We also agree with the WGIG and others that 
existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more 
solid democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.

Para 58.  I am happy to see it kept as is (Ian a lee's comments.)

Para 64 a.  Bill asked how would the USG make such a statement. 
Gallagher made the statement on June 30 which carried obvious 
authority, something similar by him or Amb. Gross.  MoU with the 
world one day! (no real opinion on that).

Para 64 c.  I'm OK with this.  Third item in the list might just be, 
"issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above."

Thanks,

Adam



At 9:15 AM +0200 8/15/05, William Drake wrote:
>Hi Karen,
>
>Attached please find further suggested edits, most notably to the late
>text additions.  All I can do today.  Thanks much for coordinating
>everything, once again...
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V4 (ajp).doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 112640 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050815/c2978046/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance