[governance] Food for thought & next steps..

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, Vittorio,

> (However, it might be that some less detailed language is the most that 
>   can get out of the process at this time.)

General language wouldn't do any harm to the forum, would it? I think we 
know that the forum has to earn its political relevance, don't we?
> 

  > Yes. I think that one likely outcome is that they agree on the forum,
> agree to disagree on the rest of section 5, and decide to use the forum 
> to continue the discussion. Not sure whether that would be good: it 
> would expose the forum too much and focus it on oversight rather than on 
> actual issues.

I also think this is a likely outcome. Does it make sense then to 
propose in our statement a shortlist of issues we think the forum should 
focus on for a start?

jeanette
> 
> 
>>So, a 600 seat room won't leave much room for CS  to participate.  
>>That a problem....
>>
>>To have the CS position known and considered in such a tiny room ,  
>>will be difficult. A strategy would be to prepare a CS position in  
>>advance and share it with delegations in advance of the event . Thus,  
>>there's a lot of work to do in the coming days ....In that context, I  
>>would agree with Jeanette and others that we - really - should stay  
>>focuses on preparing for the negotiations at the resumed prepcom
> 
> 
> We should have our own wording proposal and put it on the table in 
> advance. And it should be so clever that everyone says, "wow!".
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance