[governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGCsubmissions

[Lee McKnight]

Hi,

Leaving aside for the moment the 'themes' issue, which is urgent and embarrassing but we'll get over that, I'm wondering why people are jumping to the conclusion that Avri's process which is working fine now needs to be stopped.  

Sort the submissions issue as best we can, but let IGC's brand new nomcom do its thing.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 4/3/2006 8:37 AM >>>

>> 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...>>

I am for preserving the brand and doing as Bill suggests. And of course we
needed to have done many of these things earlier which we didn't - and of
course it is a shared responsibility that we didn't. 

It will be somewhat pointless, at least weak, to suggest MAG members, when
no substantive agenda will be seen as having come out of IGC....

This goes back to the old problem of coordinators, and something of a
'status quo plus' for IGC....


Parminder 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:39 PM
To: Meryem Marzouki; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send
IGCsubmissions

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

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