[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - content

[Parminder]

I agree we need to work fast on this. A couple of suggestions/
contributions.

> 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.

To keep things relatively neat, quick, and likely to produce best outcomes,
I propose that

(1) for our internal processes of acceptance/adoption by the IGC we separate
the content part from other parts of the statement. . We can then pull it
together while actually making the statement. The two parts will be distinct
even in the final statement so that there are no substantive changes after
the two parts of the statement are accepted by the caucus.

(2) I will like to put the two parts for consensus sooner, so that they
could be voted upon if necessary, and/or also make to the written input
stage for incorporation into the synthesis doc for the meeting.  

My proposal is that we collect inputs into the 4 part theme structure as per
Bill's email enclosed here over the next three days, 7th to 9th, on 9th
night we put the 'content' doc up for rough consensus and wait for 48 hours.
If adopted, we submit it for 14th deadline of written inputs. If not, we put
it for vote and if then adopted take it directly to the meeting as a spoken
statement.

I will try and propose an intro para or two for thematic or content
submission which will make the point (in the spirit of our submission of
themes) that IGF 2 needs to be different than IGF 1 in terms of its
substantive content, and that it should address real issues that most
concern people today in the IG realm, and in the language that they are
mostly formulated in public spaces. And that this will enable it to fulfill
its mandate under p72 much better. If anyone will like to draft this intro
paras for 'content' submission, please do.

Parminder 
________________________________________________

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:49 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller
> Cc: Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
> 
> 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