[governance] IGC sponsored IGF workshops

karen banks karenb at gn.apc.org
Wed Jun 20 14:03:52 EDT 2007


quote from meryem:

>So the only way to avoid the "MAG" refusing this workshop on
>"objective" criteria related to lack of MS-sponsorship would indeed
>be to ask the secretariat to co-sponsor this workshop as part of a
>sane reflexive exercise (and probably as a good way to awake the UN
>Secretary-General and show him that he should decide something
>regarding IGF). And why not replacing this discussion in the whole
>framework of the UN reform started in 1997? After all, Nitin Desai
>himself was, from 1998 to 2003, an advisory board member of UNFIP,
>one of the instruments set up in the context of this reform, that I
>mentioned in a previous message discussing the IGF MS funding proposal.

i don't see why the workshop proposal would be rejected - this is far 
less contraversial than critical internet resources, and that's been 
taken up by the IGF - and in fact i think it would be a very useful 
contribution, and that it would seen to be so?

>This would make this proposal a very interesting workshop. And, if
>"IGF's role and mandate" is likely to frighten, including members of
>this caucus, we could find a "safer" title and description for it.

i also don't see why that title should frighten anyone - it's 
straight from an  intergovernmentally negotiated text ;) and even if 
so, no reason not to proceed

>The question remains: would members of this caucus agree that its
>coordinators approach the secretariat to discuss such a proposal.

i'm sorry if i've missed something here..  is the intent to approach 
the IGF secretariat to guage whether this is something that might be 
interesting? and then proceed?  if people thanks that's useful, why not?

otherwise, it's more who would be involved in developing the workshop proposal

APC haven't yet finalised ideas for workshop proposals, and i 
couldn't say yet to what extend, if any, we could help with this 
proposal.. but we made a substantial comment on the IGF role and 
mandate (more mandate than role) during the open consultation (below) 
and clearly have an interest in participating in activities that 
would contribute to this..


APC feels that themes and issues should be mapped to some of the 
requirements of paragraph 72 a. to k. each year. Naturally, it is not 
possible to cover all themes and issues or all of the requirements of 
paragraph 72. But each year a different combination and theme/issue 
could be addressed in the plenary sessions, emerging issues and best 
practices fora. This would ensure that the IGF does not simply 
operate as a space for policy dialogue and panel discussions but that 
it attends to other requirements of its mandate in an innovative way.

By way of illustration, the following combinations of 
theme/issue/practice, session and paragraph 72 requirements could be 
worth considering under the Access, and Emerging issues themes....

[ more under 2. Recommendation on plenary and emerging issues 
sessions  - http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5067091

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070620/a499d4b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070620/a499d4b0/attachment.txt>

More information about the Governance mailing list