[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Parminder]

> 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,

 

But the problem is that IGF is an (potentially) important institution for
IG, and some of these questions are crucial to be asked in the first
meeting. Otherwise its character will be cast. And if we do not ask them, in
all probability, nobody else is going to.

 

Can we so easily give up on this responsibility.

 

As for the problem of not having due processes for calling rough consensus,
I suggest a way out, if Avri is agreeable to it. There has been a consensus
among the 5-6 people who got involved in the discussion on the three basic
points on Bill's text - developing capacity in IGF to fulfill its complete
mandate, transparency of its processes and pro-active effort for
inclusiveness, and setting up WG/ dynamic coalition kind structures on an
ongoing basis. We have heard no opposition to these three points. 

 

So I suggest that we give 24 hours for anyone to oppose submission by the
IGC to the IGF with these three points - pulling together text which has
been circulated - and if no one opposes it, we write a 'clear' text and put
it up for adoption. This can be done over the weekend. And if there are a
good number of assenting voices, and no dissent we go ahead with it. And I
am sure that this would not be a new procedure. Statements have been adopted
on behalf of the IGC earlier in similar conditions. And with similar number
of people involved initially in the exchanges.

 

Parminder 

 

PS: I am traveling in 2 hours, and will be offline for 15 hours after that. 

________________________________________________

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: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:49 PM

> To: Governance

> Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

> 

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061026/9258d206/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061026/9258d206/attachment.txt>