[governance] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM

[Adam Peake]

I read some text this morning.  As the CS plenary decided that we 
should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and 
various CS lists, we dropped that text for now.  What I think I said 
(pretty on the fly) was:

Good morning Mr. Chair

Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and 
inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are 
much appreciated.

However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to 
participate fully in the drafting groups.  And that the rules and 
procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all.

Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups?

We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are 
pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. 
But also note some have not been included.  For example last Friday 
we made comments about 43c.  These comments were also mentioned by a 
government in sub committee yesterday.  But they are not mentioned in 
your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting group 
meeting that discussed 43 yesterday.  Did we have rights to speak in 
that drafting group?  Could we have reminded the group that we had 
already submitted comments and those comments were already on the 
prepcom3 website.

I think you can understand our confusion.  Can we join and speak in 
drafting groups?  Are our comments made to sub-committee A being 
taken into consideration?

We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some 
resolution yesterday.

Thank you.

END.

Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should 
already have seen.

I think bad precedence is being set.  Above was read in my name and 
that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my 
responsibility, I thought something had to be said.

Thanks,

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