[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Adam Peake]

I agree very much with what Jeanette's said.

I don't see the meeting as a statement'y kind of place. There won't be
statements from the floor.

The time for statements of this kind was before August 2.  We blew it.

But, whoever wants could print it up and distribute, or ask George
Sadowsky for space in the "plaza".   And there is always the
blogsphere route in, it is a legitimate online input.  I am not saying
I agree with the caucus doing that, but I hope someone will (modifying
text to reflect whoever is taking responsibility.)

Anyway, some thoughts on the content:

Para 1.  Boiler plate, but who cares.  Yes, in WSIS it needed framing.
 IGF I hope not.

Para 2.  OK

Para 3/4, (1) is a very good issue for the setting the scene session
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Description_of_Theme_.Multistakeholder_Policy_Dialogue.php>
 But not at that length/detail.  Interventions should be a minute, two
at most.

Para 5, (2) Now's time to promote the concept of a process of dialogue
and not worry about annual conferences. Think it's going to be hard
enough getting the majority to move away from focusing on the annual
event.  Only 1 more country to step in and offer to host and the 5
years series is complete.

Accountable to who?  Right now the MAG is accountable to the Secretary
General as he convenes the whole thing and MAG was set up to advise
him.  It legitimate because he was invited to do something and he's
doing it. And as for WGIG recommends ...  isn't the practical
implementation of that the workshops? Or the process we missed up to
August 2 when anyone could submit any comment on any issue.  At least
that will be the reply. The point of multi-stakeholder is we won't
always get exactly what we ask for, and getting some and compromise is
part of being part of a multi-stakeholder process.

Para 6, (3) Delete 1st sentence.  Yes, we do need online working
groups. They have been raised in MAG and so far not been accepted.
Important that this is also raised as part of setting the scene.

As a member of the MAG I have been wondering if I should comment on
this statement. I certainly wouldn't want my negative view to derail
the statement if people wish to push forward with it.

But as a member of the caucus I am bothered but a procedural point --
we have just undergone an incredibly long and painful process to agree
a charter and process, isn't this last minute draft exactly the kind
of thing the re-chartering was to avoid?

Adam
____________________________________________________________
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