[governance] oversight

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Jeanette has the right approach. CS is rather diverse and is we want to have consensus like governments, we produce the same vague laguage which charatcrizes govenrmental declarations. 
 
One way to make life easier is to have a short document with clear principles.
 
The CS IG Tunis Declaration shou,d be no longer than two or three pages, maximum (including two Annexes with
a. a fromal proposal for a Forum and
b. a mandate for a CS Working Group on Oversight.
 
There will be alot of life after Tunis, but Tunis is a unique opportunity which can produce a milestone. 
 
I also agree fully with Adams approach to base the CS IG Tunis Declaration on the existing language drafted for PrepCom2 and 3. Great speeches by Avri, Jeanette, Karin and others (also male members) has been made there. 
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 

 
________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
Gesendet: Do 27.10.2005 00:26
An: Vittorio Bertola
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight






>>What if we take the key points of the Argentinian proposal
>
>
> I would avoid adopting or making reference to any governmental proposal,
> even if just as a starting point. If you start from the Argentinian
> proposal, you join the "pro-USG anti-EU" front, and if you start from
> the EU proposal, it's the opposite.

Why would it not be possible to escape that logic?
>
>
>>and adjust them
>>along the lines Adam began and ask a drafting group from the IG caucus to
>>prepare a draft that expands on each point, drawing on the discussion so
>>far as well as the civil society submissions to Prep-Com 3. This can then
>>be brought back  for further comment, before finalising it. The final
>>draft should be released to the media in the week before Prep-Com 3
>>resumes. The draft should use the format of Chapter 3 and be crafted for
>>insertion into the chapter. I propose Avri and Adam act as the drafting
>>group.
>
>
> I disagree. This is the most important and most contentious issue on our
> table: I don't see any subgroup being able to work on it satisfactorily.

As Avri pointed out, a group of the size of the active caucus members
definitely won't produce any satisfactory results. We need people who
take over responsibility and produce a draft very soon. If you donÄt
like Willi's proposal because you are not part of the club, why don't
you join it?

> I think that all drafting should happen on this list

Vittorio, this is impossible.

and we should adopt
> a rough consensus rule, i.e. documents cannot be released unless all
> objections have been considered and possibly accommodated.

I disagree with this suggestion because there will always be somebody
who objects. What we want I think is rough consensus. We have had this
debate before IIRC.

jeanette
>
> I respect Avri's and Adam's point of view on oversight, and even share
> it in part, but it is significantly different to other points of view
> that have been exposed in the past weeks, for example Milton's, or
> Stephane's, or Patrick's. I would like to be sure that all these points
> of view are duly reflected in any consensus document.
>
>  > B.INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM
>
> Incidentally, you might have noticed that we have already been working
> on text for the part of section 5 regarding the forum. I'm still waiting
> for someone to explain whether we can use that text, or what's wrong
> with it.
_______________________________________________
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