[governance] Caucus Position on Oversight?

[McTim]

Hi Ian,

Apologies for not responding to your direct queries earlier:
On 9/25/05, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Which structural change recommendations in Internet governance is ISOC
> supporting or recommending?
<ISOC hat on>

The ISOC positions can be found here:

http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/wsis/

<ISOC hat off>

I have previously suggested having an e-forum function (but please
don't include me in your declaration of "broad consensus" that a Forum
is needed).  I agree with Raul that we must be very careful.  if you
recall, the WGIG report called for a "Forum function".  Why not have
the face 2 face Forum function meetings be included in the current IG
mechanism meetings?  This would of course be in addition the the
e-forum function, but would facilitate communication, be truly global,
as dozens of these meetings are held all over the world every year.
This would also facilitate more meaningful participation, as
travelling to a local or regional destination is far easier for
excluded groups than affording a trip to Geneva.

This way, all players have greater opportunities to share their
expertise with each other.  I would expect that decisions would be
made by consensus after full consultation of all stakeholders and
would NOT be made by the small elite of folk who are able to travel to
f2f meetings.  This would mean a process of e-discussion, f2f meeting,
more e-discussion and then consensus (or not) on the way forward being
agreed.  This is the way current IG works in my limited experience
(coming from the numbering world).  let's build on those Best Current
Practices, and not re-invent wheels.

</hats>

--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

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