[governance] IGC Workshop Proposal

[Parminder]

Meanwhile, to make it very clear, the proposal remains up for consensus
seeking in the form it was posted by me - and 'yes' and 'no' responses are
solicited (explanations are welcome, but the 'yes' or 'no' to the proposal
as it stands now should be clear). 

Thanks 
________________________________________________
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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:56 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com; 'karen banks';
> 'William Drake'
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGC Workshop Proposal
> 
> 
> 
> Yehuda and Karen,
> 
> We are in a bit of a process problem, which I seek your help to resolve.
> 
> I had closed the time for giving in comments, and put an unchangeable text
> for consensus. At this stage we do not take inputs but only yes or no.
> 
> I know I closed it 3 hours before the 48 hours deadline because I wasn't
> sure I will be able to do emailing after (my) office hours today, and we
> were running short on time.
> 
> So unless you absolutely insist this is a vitiation of the process and you
> absolutely want the process to commence again, I will request you to
> accept
> the present version as final for a 'yes' or 'no'.
> 
> However, on Karen's point on reference to p 73, there is an additional
> complication since she claims (rightly) that she had made this point
> earlier.
> 
> I read all comments, but I wasn't clear if Bill when he mentioned
> 
> > It'd be possible to build a forward-looking reference to 73's periodic
> review into something centered on 72.
> 
> he meant to build this reference to 73 in the workshop summary itself, or
> it
> was meant to come automatically in the process that will be initiated with
> this workshop. In any case he did not do so in his proposal and I thought
> it
> was meant in a general way, in the context of the process that this
> workshop
> will initiate.
> 
> So when Karen agreed with Bill, it did not occur to me that a specific
> insistence for including corresponding wording is being made (it may be
> intended, and I may have been wrong in my interpretation).
> 
> So, I think we can discuss this matter at the workshop whether we make it
> an
> annual exercise to assess the mandate, role and current working of the IGF
> and if this has sufficient support, include it in the workshop report.
> However, Karen, if you insist, since this point was made by you during the
> comments period - I can take a separate vote on inclusion of this point in
> the proposal itself.
> 
> 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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