[governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting

[Adam Peake]

Good statement (other than the curly quotes :-) 

I think we should go to the ICC-BASIS statement and use:

The Internet Governance Caucus [Business] fully 
supports Mr. Nitin Desai as the chair of the IGF 
advisory group, and recognizes his expertise and 
professionalism as a major factor in the advisory 
group's successful completion of its tasks.

Workshop: I wouldn't go as far as saying they 
must be be half discussion, but I think an 
emphasis on discussion should be stressed.

I think there are 46 members of the MAG (can 
someone check). Expressing dissatisfaction with 
number of CS is right to do. But do we need to 
present things as a negative, can it be positive? 
Rather than saying we want an equal number to any 
other group (not so good, likely lead to people 
differently interpreting what is/is not CS, and 
counting differently), suggest we ask that 
"Representatives from civil society groups who 
can present a gender perspective [wording?], 
people with disabilities and experts on local 
access conditions, particularly from African and 
SE Asian regions, would be a positive addition to 
the membership Advisory Group and should be 
invited to join. IGC would be please to work with 
the Chair and Secretariat on preparing a possible 
list of names for the Secretary General's 
consideration."

This "blessing" of the dynamic coalitions is 
important. I think they must be associated with 
and become an essential part of the IGF as 
process, but tieing too closely may not be what 
some want. 

Themes:

Access should be the overarching theme.
Capacity building a clear priority out of Athens. 
(related, and I expect some caucus members might 
object to this, but I would like to see a 
sentence saying "The IGC welcomes the recognition 
of the Internet technical community as a fourth 
stakeholder in the IGF process. Information 
Society and the critical issues of capacity 
building and extending access needs the equal 
participation of this vital fourth stakeholder.")

Missing issues we should ask to be addressed in this and future consultations:

Tunis Agenda, para 72 as the mandate of the IGF 
and how to better incorporate all the tasks 
proposed in this mandate. Particularly in 
preparation for and in Rio we believe the agenda 
should include opportunity to begin dialogue on:

"Strengthen and enhance the engagement of 
stakeholders in existing and/or future  Internet 
governance mechanisms, particularly those from 
developing countries."

"Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical 
Internet resources."  Which could complement 
discussions on enhanced cooperation. (I would 
like us to suggest discussing ICANN  stuff. So 
long as it doesn't dominate and suck the life 
from the rest.)

Adam



At 6:11 PM +0100 2/1/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Adam Peake ha scritto:
>>Could you post as RTF?
>
>Attached.
>
>>And use simple plain text when trying to use 
>>text, no high ascii (curly quotes etc.)
>
>That's the free software community trying to 
>beat Microsoft in terms of "smart copy & paste" 
>:)
>--
>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
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:20070213 - 
>Statement#254CFD.rtf (NO%F/›j›¤) (00254CFD)

____________________________________________________________
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