[governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus

[Avri Doria]

hi,

I think that the multiple voices of CS is good and think it will be  
the case even if the IGC gets its act together in the direction of SQ 
+, i.e. if we achieve the ability to publish IGC rough consensus  
positions.  Just because the IGC comes to a consensus position does  
not then stop any other group from also making a statement.  I think  
that the IGC will normally end up representing a centrist CS position  
given the diversity of participation in the IGC.  And I believe that  
while the IGC can represent CS positions, it can not ever claim to  
actually represent CS.  I think that is one of the important  
distinctions which we pretty much all probably accept.  Though  
representing centrist CS positions is probably a worthwhile thing in  
and of itself.  In other words, the EU model for the IGC is probably  
not such a bad thing.

I think that if the caucus at large wants to make a statement by the  
end of March, it needs to start drafting soon.  I think we have heard  
several threads, from the importance of the development perspective  
as cross cutting to specific recommendations for Spam, right to  
communicate (i anticipate wit certain trepidation the discussions  
over this right) and liberalizing telecoms.  I think I agree about 3  
or 20, as long as the list is prioritized it will probably be a  
worthwhile contribution to the discussion.  I personally don't know  
how many topics the IGF can handle in its first meeting, but we are  
talking about a 5 year process, so I expect many topics will be  
covered over the life of the forum.  I do think that it is important  
that, as McTim did, we explain why a topic is both important for the  
IGF and tractable within the IGF.


a.


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