[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Parminder]

> Parminder's questions hit the key points that have been
> raised but arguably
> are a bit longer (two pages) and more analytical than is
> desirable in a
> floor intervention; if we can prune a little and figure out
> how to determine
> rough consensus in the next couple of days, that'd be great.

Bill, Since there is less than a week to the IGF, it will be good if someone
(you??) took a go at the points to put them in a more presentable form...

Parminder 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:54 PM
> To: Peake, Adam; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Responding to two of posts from Adam.
> 
> > From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> 
> > IGF seems to be ignoring a large part of it's mandate
> > (<http://www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm>)  It would be
> good to ask
> > why, but better to discuss how to we can start to address
> the
> > overlooked issues. (does why matter as much as improving
> things?)
> 
> That's why I suggested a simple text asking how IGF
> participants intend to
> go about fulfilling the mandate governments set out in the
> TA.   We're not
> going to get anywhere with a proposal to publicly dissect the
> forces that
> turned this www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm into a UN-related
> INET.  Simply
> asking for clarification as to whether there's any commitment
> to implement
> the agreement (and if so how) and a mandate for inter-
> conference WGs/dynamic
> coalitions would be enough to seed the clouds. And since the
> caucus endorsed
> the mandate previously, this presumably would not be a
> divisive or laborious
> effort.
> 
> Parminder's questions hit the key points that have been
> raised but arguably
> are a bit longer (two pages) and more analytical than is
> desirable in a
> floor intervention; if we can prune a little and figure out
> how to determine
> rough consensus in the next couple of days, that'd be great.
> 
> > If it were up to me, I'd offer space in these rooms to any
> workshop
> > organizer (there will be about 30 separate workshops in
> all.)  They'd
> > have a few tables and chairs set apart from others in the
> room so
> > people who were interested in their workshop could drop by
> and chat
> > about next steps.  We need to start thinking of ways to use
> Athens to
> > spark an ongoing dialogue.  This is the best I can come up
> with.
> 
> A BOF/dynamic coalition space would be good, except that I
> wouldn't
> necessarily limit this to topics covered in Athens workshops.
> People might
> want to launch groupings on other topics as well, e.g.
> implementation of the
> WSIS principles, fulfilling the IGF mandate, whatever.  Maybe
> people could
> propose topics, Nitin could list from the podium so everyone
> knows the menu,
> and then people gravitate to whichever is of interest?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance