[governance]

[Vittorio Bertola]

Adam Peake ha scritto:
> Good statement (other than the curly quotes :-)

Thanks.
May I ask everyone to post any proposal for edits before the end of
Wednesday, so that there still are a few days to discuss any remaining
issue with such proposals, and for me to prepare a final version?

For the rest, I think your comments are good, I only have a remark on a
couple of things that go in the direction of expressing particular
preferences, such as this one:

> 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."

and this one:

> Access should be the overarching theme.
> Capacity building a clear priority out of Athens.

because I think that each of us has different priority issues (for me it
would be rights and information freedom, for example) and different views
on who should be added to the AG (I do feel the need to add individual
users and "hackers", for example). So I would rather state all our
suggestions for important themes without prioritizing them, and, for what
regards the AG, say that we think that we have more perspectives to add
but leave it open about who should be invited to join, also because we
might want to run the usual nomcom process.

> (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.")

Well... I'd be happy to welcome it, but not if it is at the damage of our
own representation. Maybe we can add it, but then add a sentence that
specifies that this doesn't eliminate the need for ample representation of
the "traditional" WSIS civil society folks :)

> "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.)

More views on this one? I'd like to understand whether there is any clear
or rough consensus in the caucus.
-- 
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