[governance] IGC's questions to the IGF

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> About "petitioning", I addressed the document to "all fellow IGF 
> participants", I think that is more in line with Adam's observations.

Yes, that's much better.  Or if we wanted to steer away from "petition" 
altogether it could perhaps become a "manifesto".  It's just a title, 
really.

> In the end, while I support it, I think that the point on ICANN & 
> enhanced cooperation (which is a substance point where there is lots of 
> heated disagreement) does not really fit with the rest, which is all on 
> process. Perhaps it could be pruned?

Sure, I agree.

> In general, this is now too long and I agree with Bill that we might 
> want to shorten it and only focus on a few key points, I'es, I d say full 
> respect of the mandate, deliberative processes, working groups, and AG 
> representation. We could easily strike the entire two initial paras, for 
> example.

I have no problem with that.  I was trying to preserve as much as I 
could of Parminder's text, but if he's happy (or enough other people 
are) then I'm happy.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
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