[governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance[revised text]

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

I agree with Bill's assessment.  

Also, whilst I agree with your (Avri's) assessment that any group of people
can set up a WG, this is quite different than saying this group will be THE
CS group contributing into the IG Forum. It may just be better to say, CS
will be organising itself to see how it can best contribute to this Forum.
These various WGs could then collaborate together to see if there is one CS
input, and if not feasible, then there could be different CS WGs involved in
the Forum so as not to cause delays in trying to coordinate common points of
view. It has to be clear then which WG and who are the members this group
speaks for and hopefully this caucus list will be kept as a means to inform
others on what these WGs are working on so they can at the least be kept
informed.

Meanwhile, I know some may not like focus on procedure and process, in the
long run these will be key to CS effective participation (i.e.
inclusive,multistakeholder, legitimacy, etc) as well as that for the Forum.
Here is where I feel as we organise we can also offer suggestions on how the
Forum could organise itself and we should insist as we are in the CS draft
that we be included in that process building phase.

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:43 AM
To: William Drake
Cc: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet
Governance[revised text]


On 30 nov 2005, at 00.11, William Drake wrote:

>>
>> "Element two:
>> How CS is going to structure itself to engage with the IG forum [wait 
>> for outcome of IG caucus meeting - whether a specific WG would be 
>> setup to make recommendations on the modalities of functioning of the 
>> future IG forum]"
>
> This will not be resolved in time to fit into the statement.   
> There's been
> no follow-up discussion on Avri's proposal or any others with respect 
> to the caucus' constitution and procedures going forward.  It's anyway 
> not obvious that a statement of view on what governments agreed has to 
> say how exactly we will organize internally.

I do think that there is every intention to start this WG.  I don't think
this is up to the caucus, though of course i hope the caucus doesn't take
objection to it.  I beleive that any group of people can start a WG, and i
believe it a reasonable statement to say that the formation of such a
working is under discussion.

a.


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

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