[governance] Draft IGC Workshop Proposal

[Jeremy Malcolm]

William Drake wrote:
> B. Whether some or all of the functions enumerated in the mandate are 
> important, value-adding, activities that are not being performed 
> elsewhere, would benefit the global community, and are uniquely suited 
> to the IGF;
> C. Operationally practical steps that could be pursued on a consensual, 
> multistakeholder basis by the IGF community in order to perform those 
> functions identified in B, above.

Is this an invitation for the private sector, Internet technical 
community, OECD countries and Secretariat to say "No, X paragraph of the 
mandate is not important/value-adding/beneficial/uniquely suited, so no 
action is required under C"?

Perhaps reword this so that it does not presuppose that there are some 
paragraphs of the mandate that should no longer be pursued.  How about 
simply combining points B and C (but remaining close to the agreed 
wording from our February submission) to read:

B. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be 
performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, what 
operationally practical steps could be pursued on a consensual, 
multistakeholder basis by the IGF community to fulfil these and other 
elements of its mandate?

In any case, I will support either wording rather than block agreement.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
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