[governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement?

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, I support Bill's approach but would prefer if we didn't start with 
all questions at the same time.
Perhaps an amended version of Ginger's text could be used for question 6?
jeanette

William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ginger
> 
> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth 
>> Graham's previous suggestions:
> 
> My recollection is that about a half dozen of us expressed significant 
> concerns about that text and you then withdrew it, so it's not obvious 
> why we'd put it back on the table as a starting point.  In any event it 
> was not formulated as responses to the secretariat's specific questions, 
> so one could not readily set it next to the questionnaire responses by 
> other stakeholders for comparison and contrast and development of the 
> synthesis paper.  Why not just do it the way they're asking us to?
> 
> Since we don't have a wiki to compile structured responses, an ugly but 
> workable option would be to start a separate thread for each of the 
> questions below, let any caucus members who are so inclined respond to 
> taste, then aggregate the responses by Sunday and then we can try to 
> boil them down into a few coherent paragraphs per Monday-Wednesday?
> 
> There might be more elegant procedures imaginable, but this might 
> stimulate some low barrier to entry engagement; I doubt anyone's got the 
> time to draft a complete text covering all points, but people might pick 
> and choose the bits of particular interest to them.  And the result 
> would be more reflective of the various views here and more responsive 
> to the points the secretariat needs to address.
> 
> Just a thought,
> 
> Bill
> 
> PS: you are using a very old email address for me that is no longer 
> forwarded.
>>
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
>> the Tunis Agenda?
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? 
>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? 
>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for 
>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group 
>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year 
>> mandate, and why/why not?
>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
>> processes?
>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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