[governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF

[William Drake]

Hi Ralf,

Thanks for the input on the agenda of the IGC workshop.

On 10/24/07 4:51 PM, "Ralf Bendrath" <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

>> it¹s hard to see how
>> it could devise even recommendations,
> Wolfgang had the neat idea of multiple "messages" that could come out of
> the coalitions' work or the IGF workshops and would not have to be
> "adopted" by the final plenary.

We could take up this, and other alternative ideas...
 
>> /39. The forum could provide, for example, the following functions:
>> 
>> a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for
>> peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a
>> Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.
>> /
>> [NB: Clearly a major difference here from annual meetings only.  Now
>> even the term, working group, is verboten.]
> But we have the dynamic coalitions.

But they're free floating and don't have the sort of institutionalized
relationship to the IGF that sub-bodies of other IG collaborations have in
terms of recognition and ability to input, per the long-ago recs of the
MMWG.  Should we address that?
 
>> d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture,
>> i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly
>> within the ambit of any existing body;
> We're trying to address this for the privacy field (which is "orphaned" on
> the global level) at WS25(SEC) in Rio.

Right.  But per the above, if you folks come up with some ideas, what then
happens to them?
 
> What about support for "disadvantaged stakeholders"? I lost track on
> travel fellowships etc. Are there any?

There's whatever Canada's doing, and someone at the ITU told me today that
they are offering unspecified support to "18 people from almost 15
developing countries, and 4 continents."  No reply yet as to whether any are
nongovernmental.

>> The workshop will of course focus not on the above, but on the agreed
>> mandate.
> It still could make sense to refer to positions pre-Tunis, in order to
> show where the TA content came from and to show as CS that TA is only a
> lowest common denominator, while we asked for more and still want it.

Hence my reply to Adam.

Any other topical ideas?

Cheers,

BD 


____________________________________________________________
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