[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision]

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 26 oct. 06 à 10:31, William Drake a écrit :

> it's not obvious how to resolve this, but clearly to reach a  
> comfort level on either doing it or not doing it we need to at  
> least have more people weighing in either way; it doesn't actually  
> take that much time to type yes or no....

OK...
- Yes to a statement, much needed if this caucus wants to be  
considered as a caucus (or considers itself as a caucus)
- No to this statement, which, despite your efforts as well as those  
of Parminder, Vittorio and Jeremy, appears in the end as unclear on  
the common views and demands of the caucus (if any), and, even  
downsized as it is now, still raise concerns from people who  
expressed themselves on the  list.

I, myself, also have important concerns, like e.g. the problem with  
the AG is not that its members are appointed for one or 10 years, but  
that we almost haven't heard from its members - at least its CS  
members - before any decision was made.
Why on earth do we need CS members in the AG in such a scheme ?  
Wouldn't be preferable e.g. if there was only a secretariat that,  
being restricted to secretariat tasks, would be obliged to organize  
issue-related working groups ?
This is only one of the many issues to be discussed, and it's not  
time to discuss them now.

To be constructive, what I can propose is that:
1/ We take the time to discuss all these issues and make a statement  
(if possible) AFTER Athens. An assessment of one year of IGF  
existence. Not because, as Avri said, we shouldn't complain before  
things happens (since things - or nothing, I should rather say -  
happened already during one year of IGF existence... unless we are  
ready to agree that IGF is nothing more than an annual conference in  
a nice place). But because we cannot do better that this way.
2/ We hope that, during the main sessions, and at least the first one  
("setting the scene") there would be one CS person who agrees with  
the main issues expressed in this statement and would raise them, if  
only in her/his name or the name of her/his organization. I see that,  
eventually, only some days before the events, the list of panelists  
have been published on the IGF website. I'm sure Karen Banks from APC  
is the best person to convey, in the way she would choose, our shared  
deep concerns. And I'm confident she will (sorry Karen to put the  
heavy load of my expectations on you:))

Best,
Meryem
PS. Actually, it took a bit more than saying yes or no... Sorry.____________________________________________________________
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