[governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations

[Carlos Afonso]

Vittorio and all, I could not participate in the discussions leading to 
this document (my fault), so I would not try and change much.

At least one observation/suggestion however: could we at least elaborate 
a little on how we envision IGF as a process? It is not satisfactory to 
just say "we will be pleased to provide more details on request" and say 
nothing else. I suggest we at least stress the importante of, once the 
themes are established (and I truly hope these will be stated in more 
than a single word -- btw, contrary to my view, our document seems 
satisfied to keep the themes at the most vague level), a work plan is 
established between meetings to engage specialists in elaborating 
documentation and proposals in a systematic way.

It is not enough to put a sign saying "we are open to contributions" and 
just wait, like the "process" leading to Athens did.

We did this organized elaboration in WGIG and was the only way we 
managed to arrive at meaningful conclusions at the end of the process. 
No nice or deep discourse during the meeting in plenaries will replace a 
previous colaborative work sparked/oriented by specialists' proposals on 
each theme. Even less if "moderated" (manipulated?) by TV hosts.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> All,
> 
> I am attaching the (expectedly) final version of our statement for 
> Tuesday, and launching a formal consensus call on it.
> 
> Please anyone who wishes to express consensus on the statement, or 
> anyone having strong objections to it, say so before Monday, 4pm UTC. (I 
> would ask people to live by the statement if they really do not have 
> strong objections, all in all I think it reflects the discussion so far.)
> 
> The only changes in this version, in respect to the one posted a few 
> hours ago, are Ken's note on the number of CS members (which became 
> "about five" from "five or less") and two lines by Parminder on IGF 
> funding at the end of the first page (pretty neutral I'd say). Anyway, I 
> left all redlining in respect to version 1.
> 
> Separately, I am still asking people to state consensus or opposition 
> (if having a clear opinion) on the addition of the sentence "We think 
> that, as per comma (j) of the IGF mandate, the legal nature and working 
> structure of ICANN should be among the matters discussed in Rio, as long 
> as this does not prevent the IGF from paying adequate attention to all 
> the other themes.", in replacement of "Inside civil society, there are 
> different points of view about this matter;", in the second-last para. 
> This will shape another decision by the coordinators on Monday afternoon.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 16:06

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

____________________________________________________________
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