[governance] Geneva IGF consultations - Comments

[Robert Guerra]

--On February 14, 2006 10:38:22 PM +0100 Jeanette Hofmann 
<jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:

>
> Does anybody disagree with
>
> *Geneva as location for the secretariat?
no

> * meetings once a year?

no.

>
> Do people like the idea suggested in Malta to call the steering group/
> bureau rather a program committee?

I have issues with  using "bureau", as it has a certain connotation in 
the UN system. A less formal name such as  -  program committee 
steering group would likely be more flexible and less subject to capture 
by governments.

if i'm not mistaken the Canadian position mentions "program committee" 
and not "bureau".

Additional issues that CS should try to develop positions on:

1. Financing

Specifically what funds (resources, assistance, etc) would be needed for 
CS participation both at the physical meetings and the program 
committee/steering group.


2. Focus and scope of the IGF

There seemed to be slight differences of opinion at the Malta meeting on 
how narrow (or not) the themes/issues should be at the IGF. I'm 
referring to the "development" area.

Would be good that the positions be known.


3. Thematic issues to be discussed at the first IGF meeting.

At the Malta meeting it was suggested that "non-problematic" be raised 
first so as to have a productive meeting.

Spam, multi-lingualism & cybersecurity seem to be mentioned most 
frequently. What does the caucus & CS in general think about these three?

Can we come-up with 3-5 priority topics as well ? Would it be a good idea


4. Accreditation

The process and/or mechanism needed to be able to participate at the 
IGF. Is there a common CS/Caucus position on this . It is an issue that 
will come up, one which consensus would be good to put forward.

that's all for now


regards

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