[governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Vittorio,

thank you for drafting the statement.

Personally I think it is too epic, I prefer short and concise 
statements. If we keep it short, chances are better that people read it.

I am also not happy with the order of the points made in the statement. 
For me, one of the crucial points is that the IGF takes seriously all 
parts of the mandate. In the draft statement, this issue is mentioned 
only towards the bottom of page two. Im my view, this makes this issue 
look less important than, for example the lunch break you mention on the 
first page.

Some things I find unclear. For example, what do you mean by "more 
traditional plenary sessions"? Did we ever discuss this here? Without 
knowing what you mean by this, I cannot support it.

I also don't know how you want to integrate the workshops with the main 
sessions of the IGF. After all, workshops were suggested bottom up, not 
top down.

The secretariat tried to merge workshops, not always successfully. One 
cannot really force organizers to merge or to implement the 
multi-stakeholder principles, can one?

The sentence about funding I find a bit preposterous. Could we please 
delete it? (Trying to secure funding was one of the main activities of 
the secretariat. They must think we are kidding...)

I would also suggest to delete the language about "narrow Internet 
Governance" as a topic for IGF. As far as I can see, there is no message 
in it.

jeanette



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,
____________________________________________________________
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