[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Jeremy Malcolm]

William Drake wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Ok, here's yet another text we can chomp on.  Sorry to have been slow, 
> my brain's fuzzy per usual and I had to help my wife with something.

Just two points.  First, I have an issue with the whole "dynamic 
coalitions" idea, because it is easy for a powerful oligopoly to exclude 
other willing stakeholders from a dynamic coalition, and difficult to 
ensure that it is in any way accountable or transparent in its 
functioning.  I much prefer the idea of relatively formal working groups 
which can be required to report to the IGF, to adhere to consensus 
principles, and to be inclusive of any willing participants.

So I would simply delete the words "any dynamic coalitions or 
informal"; it may be just a change of nomenclature, but I think no less 
powerful for that.

Second, in lieu of it being a petition, perhaps you could include in 
there a reference to how many members of the IGC there are?  Though that 
is an open question, I realise.

Either way, don't let these small niggles hold this up being 
finalised/formalised if others seriously disagree.

Finally, can we stick this up at igcaucus.org (even if it has a "DRAFT" 
label on it)?

-- 
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