[governance]

[William Drake]

Hi,

I'm in complete agreement Vittorio on the points below.  Given the current
state of things---about ten caucus members who'll be together in Geneva, but
apparently little desire to meet as the caucus per se---I don't see how we
could have consensus on a letter elevating some folks' priorities over
others.  I'd either compile a laundry list of all suggestions or stick to
broader procedural points.

Best,

Bill


On 2/3/07 4:39 PM, "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:

> 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.




____________________________________________________________
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