[governance] CS positon 1230?

[Izumi AIZU]

Now, Adam, sitting next to me, is reading the text
Jeannette and Avir compiled taking comments on this list,
from CS IG caucus.

This is interesting, in addition to the first 5 min slot, the
Chair is flexible enought to allow more intervention closer
to the points as they negotiate.

izumi


At 06:30 05/09/27 -0400, Jeremy Shtern wrote:
>Immediately on returning from break at 1230, the chair just asked if CS
>had a position or input on the forum function. No one answered, so he
>moved on to government.
>
>I send this message in case the IG cacus had comments to make but is not
>currently in the room. I can't see who is or isn't in the lower deck
>from where I am sitting.
>-JS
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>=-=-=
>Jeremy Shtern,
>
>candidat doctoral et chercheur au Laboratoire de Recherche sur les
>Politiques de Communication/
>Ph.D candidate & researcher at the Communications Policy Research
>Laboratory
>
>Universit$Bq
(Bde Montr$BqB(Bl
>d$BqQ(Bartement de communication
>
>514-343-6111 ex./poste  5419
>jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>=-=-=
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
>Sent: September 27, 2005 5:08 AM
>To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at
>plenary - Sept 27 AM
>
>I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in
>drafting
>groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days.
>
>Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than
>kicking
>out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just
>being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation.
>
>I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive
>comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight
>and forum we should really make our own position clear to them
>in time, not after.
>
>Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus
>meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that.
>
>Thanks,
>
>izumi
>
>At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
> >[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire
> >list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for
>specific people]
> >
> >Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic
> >translation of this message!
> >_______________________________________
> >
> >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
> >_______________________________________________
> >Plenary mailing list
> >Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

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