[governance] Draft IGC Workshop Proposal

[Parminder]

I suggest we change

We will solicit speakers if the workshop is approved.

To

We are soliciting panelists, and a list will be submitted in the next 2-3
weeks. 

(ends)

I think they would want speakers before the final decision around 31st July,
at least as fulfillment of the procedure. 

In any case even when submitted, these are tentative lists.

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: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 4:59 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft IGC Workshop Proposal
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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