[governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF consultations

[l.d.misek-falkoff]

And from here, support for the posted suggestions on topic progression -

Structuring from :

basic *descriptions* ...  positive *evaluations* with comments on factors to
strengthen or add (including  candid but appreciative critique of what did
not work & lessons learned) ... on to the future.

Best wishes, Linda.
Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff.


On 2/11/07, Nnenna <nne75 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> My apologies as I was among those travelling.  I have read the text three
> times.  I am in favor of mentioning ICANN.
>
> Vittorio, thanks.  Here is my suggestion:
>
> Divide the text into:
>
>   The opening - where you present the IGC
>   Athens - say the good, bad.
>   Rio - make recommendations
>
>   The IGF in general
> The elements are already there.  I have a strong feeling that if  you move
> them around, you will find it easier to cut off some parts and  still retain
> the principle.
>
> I do support the raising the fundraising issue.  It does not in  any way
> say that the secretariat is not doing its job.  It reminds  that the problem
> is still there.
>
> Best
>
> Nnenna
>
>
> Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Jeannette/ Vittorio
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree. I think the IGF mandate part can be taken higher up in the
> document.... this wouldn't change the statement very substantively.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> We can change the wording, but what is meant I think is regular serious
> plenaries that are in contact and sync with other proceedings. For example
> to quote Carlos from a recent email.
>
> " Several post-Athens contributions are worried about format as well as
> content. My view is that we need a process in each meeting in which we
> arrive at thematic and procedural resolutions. Plenaries "moderated" (I
> prefer to say "manipulated") by professional TV hosts do not work well,
> and
> even scare some of the panelists (specially some of those whose native
> idiom
> is not English). We need thematic specialists as moderators, not "crowd
> handling" specialists or showmen -- it seemed the purpose here was to keep
> true debate dissolved into generalities." "In my view, we main focus
> should
> be on thematic workshops with the goal of presenting a resolution proposal
> in the final plenary -- the main meetings would be shorter and would work
> just as "seeds" for the workshops."
>
>
> > 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...)
>
> Since I proposed the part on funding, I must defend it. I am sure the
> secretariat would have done their best on funding. But it is wrong to
> assume
> that this statement is addressed to the secretariat. It is addressed to
> all
> stakeholders at the IGF. And there are those who need to help on funding,
> but do not do so for political reasons. The funding issue is closely
> linked
> to the issue of governance of IGF, as well of the possibility for the IGF
> to
> meet its full mandate.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, while I am for mentioning that ICANN issues should be discussed at
> IGF, because there is some conspiracy around that this issue be kept out,
> I
> am not in favor of characterizing the 'ICANN oversight' issue as a narrow
> Internet Governance issue. Because I think this oversight is often the
> thin
> side of the IG public policy wedge, therefore in essence not so narrow.
> Vittorio can do some wordsmith-ing around it.
>
> The above are for Vittorio's consideration, who may take the necessary
> decisions on these relatively minor issues.
>
> Parminder
>
> ________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change, Bangalore
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> www.ITforChange.net
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:33 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola
> > Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - Statement for the IGF
> > consultations
> >
> > 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,
> > _
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Need Mail bonding?
> Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers
> users.____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070211/4718b9e6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070211/4718b9e6/attachment.txt>