[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[William Drake]

Hi v,

> From: Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org>

> I was actually meaning to be helpful, not to push my own views :) I

Nobody said otherwise, you were helpful.

> think that Parminder's right in suggesting that both drafts share the
> same views - I am fine with your text, even if I think that it would be
> better if you could dry up the introduction, and I would love a "less
> panels, more debate" sentence somewhere (but that's not a requirement,
> at all).

Didn't know the intro was wet.  Means what?  On 'less panels,' I'd thought
"While we recognize the constraints of a large group setting, the IGF should
strive to maximize opportunities for fully participatory, bottom-up,
peer-level multistakeholder dialogue" made that point.  Too indirect
perhaps. 

Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, as a dialogue
among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement.  If someone
wants to do a sign-on for this version, yours, or Parminder's, maybe we
could pull that off, but I'm not sinking more time into this, GigaNet was
more than enough already.

> My only concern is that we are more or less complaining to the globe,
> but there is no clear step forward that we ask for... I mean, the
> original was too much of a petition, but this is IMHO too much of a
> statement. Perhaps we could close it with a sentence asking the UN SG to
> take our procedural comments into account when forming the next AG for
> Rio, and the next AG to take our substantial comments into account when
> organizing IGF 2007.

I didn't mean it as complaining, sorry if you and Avri read it that way. I
had thought it fairly moderate in tone but reflective of views expressed on
the list. And it actually does ask for some clear steps, e.g. an open
discussion on the mandate and how to achieve it; openness in AG and
conference workings; establishment of procedure for formation of and input
from groups.  Whatever.
 
> However, another option which I would really like is to try to form a
> bottom-up informal multistakeholder group to work in the next 4-6 weeks
> and come up with a consensus proposal on better formal structures for
> the IGF (eg AG selection procedures, meat for the "dynamic coalitions"
> idea, etc). We could use the excuse that the old AG is expired and that
> the new AG does not yet exist, to exploit the window of opportunity and
> demonstrate the power of self-organization, while ensuring that we reach
> some of the objectives we state. But would we ever be able to convince
> other stakeholder groups - even just business, I* societies and
> Secretariat could be enough, governmental concerns can be addressed
> separately later - and make this happen?

You mean like the MMWG?
> 
> PS You still have the "developing counties" typo in point 2, coming from
> the original text.

What original, I make my own mistakes without assistance....

Cheers,

BD


____________________________________________________________
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