[governance] Contribution to IGF consultation (was Re: Where...)

[Adam Peake]

At 11:31 AM +0200 4/7/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto:
>>>So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation?
>>
>>Hear hear on xxx.  But on the IGF Consultation, really, what is there to say?
>
>I'd subscribe a diplomatical rephrasing of what Jeremy said - 
>actually, given the present state of affairs, it seems to me that 
>that is the only additional thing that we could say at an IGF 
>consultation, apart from what we already said in February. If the 
>subject of the consultation is "agenda and program for Rio", 
>everyone already addressed that in February,


Think the point of the May consultation is to elaborate on what we 
heard in February.

"The purpose of these consultations is to address the agenda and the 
programme of the Rio de Janeiro meeting."  This was not the purpose, 
obviously, of the February meeting, and the IGC statement (produced 
in few days as a "consensus call") does not go into particular 
detail.  It would be good to discuss the statement, flesh out detail. 
We have six weeks, so can we use the time?

I'll send the February statement separately.



>so - as we discussed here with Jeanette a couple of weeks ago - one 
>would expect something new to comment upon. Otherwise, I'm tempted 
>to make a two-line contribution saying that yes, whatever we said in 
>February, we really meant it. Or resubmit the February contribution 
>altogether.
>
>However, if I'm not wrong, there will be a paper by the Secretariat 
>(did I get it well?) so when that comes out, if it contains anything 
>new, then we might have something new to say.
>
>Seen from the outside, the entire IGF process seems stuck while 
>waiting for someone in New York to reappoint the Chairman, 
>Secretariat and AG. I don't know whether any useful message about 
>the composition and internal workings of the AG was taken at the 
>February consultation - more or less everyone was asking for more 
>transparency and clear guidelines on how the AG is formed, what it 
>does, and how it operates. Was there any discussion about that in 
>the AG, or is it just waiting to be reappointed?


It is waiting to be re-appointed, it ceased to formally exist after 
the meeting the day before the consultation.  Members were asked to 
continue as volunteers.  I believe all documents from the 
consultation (statements, transcripts etc) were sent to the SG's 
office.  It wasn't for the advisory group to inform him of what we 
thought the advisory group's future should be.

As we are not getting any clear directions from the secretariat/chair 
etc (they aren't getting any from New York) it's not easy to pass on 
rumor to the caucus.  But preparing a statement on themes and 
structure of the Rio meeting is pretty obvious. Being clear about 
what the caucus thinks the limits of the advisory group should be 
would be helpful.  Thinking particularly about emerging issues and 
making proposals regarding any issues that have been overlooked to 
date would be good.  We've done much of this over the years, just 
seem to have got out of the habit recently.

The February statement's probably a good starting point.

Adam




>--
>vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
>-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
>____________________________________________________________
>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

____________________________________________________________
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