[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[Vittorio Bertola]

Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> Hello
> 
> Can anyone tell me, was Bill Drake's penultimate draft (below) of the
> statement we want to make to the MAG transmitted to anyone? Was it
> accepted by the group? Are our coordinators keeping track of this? Can
> we ACT, please?

Ok, don't jump. First, we need to transform the draft in something 
coherent. Then we need to get it approved by the caucus: this requires a 
final consensus call on a non-modifiable text, that lasts at least 48 
hours. As I would try to make it for the May 17 deadline, that can be 
scheduled for, say, May 13-16.

This is something that Parminder and I can do (not having spoken with 
Parminder yet), but first I would like to clear the substance of what we 
are going to say.

As per the draft, we would be asking to:

1) have a "plenary session" on some cross-cutting theoretical issues 
about what is or is not public policy etc.;

2) have a "main session" on ICANN (with people suggesting either to 
broaden it to IETF/W3C/ITU etc, or not to make it so focused on specific 
details such as GAC, individual user representation etc);

3) have a "plenary session" on access for disadvantaged people;

4) copy and paste of para 72.

About 4), I think I missed what would be the purpose of that - please 
advise.

About the others, it is unclear to me the difference between "main 
session" and "plenary session", but I assume that the proposers mean a 
big session like one of the four devoted to each theme in Athens. Now, 
could the AG members please tell me whether that's a reasonable request 
to make? It doesn't look so - I mean, I guess that even if the draft 
programme is flexible, it's unlikely that more plenary sessions (apart 
from those already scheduled) can be added, specifically if on 
specialized issues as opposed to the main themes. The only timeslot I 
see theoretically available is the early one on Monday 14:00-16:00.

The one main session that one could try to push for (because it's really 
missing from the program, I think), is a session on cross-cutting 
issues, say 1) but also the various framework convention-type efforts, 
and perhaps also "where is the IGF going".

For 2) and 3), I think that reasonable suggestions would be to put these 
as one of a few main points in the main session for the related theme 
(3) is access, 2)... ok, not totally clear, but perhaps access as well? 
or security?). Alternately, propose workshops (BTW - any idea on 
workshop selection criteria?)

Or, there is a slot labelled "topical issue" which I guess is still TBD 
- can people from the AG enlighten on what it is? Should we propose 
topics for it?

Finally, given that the draft schedule came out, I guess that comments 
on it would be helpful. I can pick up what we said in February and 
extract / summarize a few practical suggestions, would that be useful?

Thanks,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
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