[governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC submissions

Mon Apr 3 08:26:01 EDT 2006

Bill,

My point was indeed to "limit the damages", and to present them as  
originating from members of the IGC. i.e. Have the IGC mentioned and  
making submissions, while keeping this softer than an 'IGC proposal'  
agreed by all.
Your suggestions below (end of your message) could have helped.

However, now we are even beyond this approach (see my other message  
with subject "what a mess"). The governance caucus shouldn't even  
talk off submissions made by other constituencies, this meaning  
dropping off Mawaki's and Ken's proposal (3 proposals all in all)  
from any IGC "claim".

Remaining proposals are: Parminder's, Bill's, Garth's, Ginger's.  
Maybe other to come (APC? others?).
The status of Milton's proposal (under IGP) is unclear w.r.t. to any  
IGC "claim".

This situation is really a pity. This shows where we are, not only in  
the governance caucus, but in CS as a whole. No priority, not even  
coordination, only weakness. Not even a status quo, but steps  
backwards. And be sure governments and the IGF secretariat will take  
due note of this.

Given this situation, I would withdraw my suggestion of guidelines  
for submission by the IGC.

I would rather propose that a letter be sent to the IGF, asking them  
to kindly publish it on its website, when all proposals will be  
received, saying that the IGC has made no proposal under its name on  
purpose, so as to let all CS component to freely express its  
priorities and to demonstrate the need for a large number of working  
groups. The IGC acting here as a facilitator forsome CS components  
w.r.t. IGF issues.

If only this caucus could agree on anything, I would propose to add  
that, the IGC establishes in the same letter its priorities given  
_all_ the submitted proposals, making clear this would serve only as  
guidelines for 1st IGF plenary meeting, asking that side workshops  
should be facilitated. But I'm wondering if this is workable.

I'm also wondering how members of this caucus may dare think of  
nominating people to the MAG, when it's not even possible to gather  
proposals and send them in a consistent and responsible way. It's  
really disappointing.

The coordinators issue is really urgent to sort out.

Best,
Meryem

Le 3 avr. 06 à 13:08, William Drake a écrit :

> Hi Meryem,
>
> Thanks for moving this along.  A couple of quick questions:
>
> Unless I'm missing something, as described, this seems like sort of  
> path of
> least resistance, status quo proposal, essentially a 'do again'  
> without any
> substantive changes other than that we make sure all are included  
> and are in
> finalized form.  Am I correct that you do not envision that each of  
> the
> proposals would be labeled as coming from 'members of the IGC' or  
> from 'the
> IGC'?  Similarly, that they would not each include a standardized
> disclaimer/explanation---it sounds like this would only be done in  
> an email
> to the secretariat?  In that case, the only people who would see it  
> are the
> IGF staff; when visitors download the proposals from the IGF  
> website, they'd
> not see anything telling them the contents of your point 4/and related
> issues.
>
> Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a  
> standardized
> caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a
> disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus  
> space but
> there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why  
> they're all
> in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to  
> write this,
> but there's no point if there's not much interest here in  
> preserving the
> brand etc...
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem  
>> Marzouki
>> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:29 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC
>> submissions
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please find below very quick guidelines that could be followed to
>> send finalized submissions on Tuesday (tomorrow) from the governance
>> caucus to IGF. I think they are workable.
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>>
>> - Guidelines for proponents:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> 1/ Any individual or group who want its submission(s) to be sent
>> through the IGF caucus should post a message before Tuesday, 1pm CET,
>> with:
>> - the name(s) of the proponent(s)
>> - the clear mention that this is/are the final version(s) of the
>> proposal(s)
>> - its finalized proposal(s) as attached files
>>
>> 2/ This should be done whether or not the proposal has already been
>> sent by Robert
>>
>> - Guidelines for the caucus:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> 1/ The caucus only submit to IGF proposal(s) made by either
>> individuals or groups (groups of individuals, NGOs, institutions,
>> projects, etc.).
>>
>> 2/ The caucus will NOT send proposals originating from any other WSIS
>> CS coalition with a "status" comparable to the governance caucus
>> (i.e. proposals from Privacy and Security Working Group, from the
>> Education, Academia and Research Taskforce, from regional caucuses,
>> from the Human Rights caucus will NOT be sent through the governance
>> caucus. In any case, those which have been posted to this mailing
>> list have already been sent by their own to the IGF).
>>
>> 3/ I will keep track of the proposals sent to this list, before
>> Tuesday 1pm CET according to the guidelines for proponents and to the
>> guidelines for the caucus (item 1 and 2 of this section).
>> I will send a compilation of them to the list before Tuesday 2pm CET.
>> If there is no opposition from proponents, the list of these
>> proposals will be sent to IGF secretariat by Tuesday 4pm CET.
>>
>> 4/ The final list of proposals will be sent to IGF by Robert, with
>> the governance caucus list in Cc.
>> The accompanying message should state that:
>> - This submission replaces the former submission made by Robert
>> - The proposals contained in the submission is made by individuals
>> and/or groups members of the governance caucus.
>> - The governance caucus has decided NOT to make any priority list,
>> and NOT to keep within the limits of the three themes.
>> - The governance caucus reminds the position expressed by many of its
>> members at the IGF consultation meeting in Geneva: the IGF is seen as
>> an umbrella under which various initiatives could be taken on a
>> bottom-up basis by
>> concerned stakeholders. We recommend to create working groups to deal
>> with the various proposed issues, in the framework of an on-going
>> process. [or any better formulation of this].
>>
>> ===========
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

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