[governance] Action on Enhanced Cooperation, please

[Adam Peake]

See Michael's point, but I agree a simple thanks for this letter is enough.

What we might do is include a comment about our "continued 
willingness and readiness to substantially contribute" etc in any 
contribution on the stock-taking exercise (if we're to make a 
contribution?)

And I would also like us to say we support and encourage Mr Desai to 
continue as chair of the advisory group.

Anyone have thoughts for a contribution to the stocktaking exercise?

One comment from a MAG point of view -- it was nice to be able to 
accept all the workshop proposals for Athens.  I don't think the MAG 
would have been good at deciding which to keep and which not.  More 
time this year, should be able to design a better, clearer program. 
Without workshops, it starts to look very much like a dull conference.

No more 3 hour panels.  I thought the format generally worked, though 
moderators need more/better briefing.  Keep IG for development. 
Access as a main theme.  Capacity building as a theme rather than 
cross cutting.  Revisit para 71 for missed issues.  Internet 
resources ("ICANN") should be discussed.  Openness, Security, 
Diversity are good themes.  Emerging issues needs completely 
rethinking.

Adam



At 4:03 PM -0500 1/13/07, Avri Doria wrote:
>hi,
>
>while i appreciate politeness in letters, and signing of with 
>something polite is always a good thing regardless of whether one is 
>addressing government types or simple people, i would like to 
>caution against acting too much like the diplomats or in catering 
>too much to their style.
>
>one of the things that is special about the IGF is that is is a 
>coming together of many communities, each with their own style.  i 
>personally believe that the more we try to imitate the behavior 
>patterns of the governments, the more we weaken our case.
>
>another problem i have with statements like these is the implicit 
>indication that there is the possibility that there were conditions 
>under which we would not continue to play constructively.  certainly 
>whenever i read something like this, i immediately see the opposing 
>unstated threat.
>
>i think a simple terminating 'thank you' should be sufficient.
>
>a.
>
>
>On 13 jan 2007, at 14.35, michael_leibrandt at web.de wrote:
>
>>hi there,
>>
>>sorry for jumping into the letter discussion at this stage, but 
>>baring in mind
>>the language a former un guy like nitin is used to, i would strongly suggest
>>that - after the somewhat police inquiry type of wording in (a) and (b) - the
>>letter should close with a positive and constructive sentence like
>>
>>"we would like to reasure you our continued willingness and readiness to
>>substantially contribute to this important part of the inclusive 
>>wsis follow up
>>process".
>>
>>michael
>>____________________________________________________________
>>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

____________________________________________________________
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