[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[Adam Peake]

Milton, thanks for persevering with this. 

I think the statement must also say what we do 
support -- what parts of the proposed program are 
we pleased to see (attempt to make a more 
coherent agenda, while still allowing open 
workshops and general "open call", better 
suggestions about duration of sessions? 
Multi-stakeholder principles reinforced.  etc.)

Do we agree with the basic "Basic Meeting 
Structure" (section 2 of the draft program).  Do 
we have anything to say about dynamic coalitions?

I would say yes to all of this section, except I 
think discussion of core resources must be the 
subject of a main session.

Are we OK with "3 Meeting Types"  (only thought 
is "best" practise must also include lessons 
learned, hearing about what not to do can be as 
valuable as people boosting their own work.)

I am not sure I understand "speed dialogue" but why not hear more about it.

"6. Content" seems to be what our statement focuses on.

I hope we can propose "core resources" as a main session. 

I do not support the way we propose to address 
"critical Internet resources" at the moment:


At 9:21 AM -0400 5/4/07, Milton Mueller wrote:
>(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources
>
>Core Internet resources should be discussed as a main session in the
>IGF. Policy toward "critical Internet resources" are a major topic  in
>the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and
>number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet
>Registries. This session should discuss the policy issues and policy
>making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's  status
>as an international organization, its representation of individual
>users, and the changing role of the  GAC within ICANN should be
>discussed.


ICANN should not be the focus, too narrow a 
subject for a main session. The only people who 
care about individual participation in ICANN are 
a few of us on this list and a hand full of 
others.  It will be dismissed as "enhance 
cooperation", it's  gift for anyone who wants to 
make sure "critical Internet resources" are not 
discussed.  Would be naive to propose in this way.

If you want to make sure "critical Internet 
resources" is buried, this is the way to do it.

Suggest quoting the whole of 72 a in (1) of our statement.

Rest of the statement's fine.  Although seems 
overlapping. I think the response to (3) will be, 
"good, propose is as a workshop".

About (4). I think this is extremely important. 
Can we propose the "Topical Issue" session become 
a session discussing the IGF mandate to see if 
it's  providing the right direction for the 
following years.  Associated workshops would 
flesh out some of the items in 72 and bring them 
to the main session.  (Discussing topical issues 
might be interesting in workshops or could become 
part of best practise: what were the best ways to 
cope with Taiwan earth quake and cut cables...)

Thanks,

Adam












____________________________________________________________
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