[governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues

Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp) apeake at gmail.com
Thu Dec 1 08:27:31 EST 2005

Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the
forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might
evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge
separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the
caucus or any new working group? Civil society will ensure that the
interests of all caucuses and working groups are represented in the IG
Forum / we will make recommendations on modalities and other
arrangements for the new forum.


On 12/1/05, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:
> Hi Vittorio,
> > I think we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the
> > only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to
> > discuss about the forum.
> How can we be clear about something that is outside of our control to
> begin with? And in what way does it matter whether or not other groups
> form who intend to deal with "modalities"? Since we never speak for
> civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I
> don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve.
> jeanette
> In fact, I expect that there might be a number
> > of other caucuses and NGOs making suggestions about the Forum modalities
> > without going through our WG, and I think this should be made clear as
> > well (unless what we envisage is to prevent this from happening, which
> > however I would neither know how nor like to do).
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please
reply to  <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!

governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org

More information about the Governance mailing list