[governance]

[Mawaki Chango]

Re: the Internet technical community as a fourth stakeholder in the
IG policy processes.

I never seem to receive postings from Adam Peake (all listservs we
both seem to belong to, included) so I'm replying based on what I
read from Vittorio's.

I've attempted to distinguish the technical CS from the rest in an
edited document published by Ken's project/organization, CIPACO,
"Opening the Internet Governance Forum Debate in Africa," which you
may find at 
http://www.cipaco.org/sources/OpeningIGFdebateAfrica.pdf, or the
abstract at
http://www.cipaco.org/spip.php?page=document&id_rubrique=2&num_doc=307

But as you probably know, borders are always tricky to establish;
they always seem to have something arbitrary ;-) so I admit this
attempt is still ambiguous ("professional"/technical vs. "general"
CS.) Critics are obviously welcome.

Mawaki


--- 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.
> -- 
> 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