[governance] Re: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version (McTim's changes)

[Ginger Paque]

Can you suggest an alternate wording? Now you have had time to think 
about it :)

gurstein wrote:
> Clearly this is not a consensus position as it doesn't, as Ginger points
> out, respond (or include) my (or Garth's) comments.
>
> Before I go further it would be useful to hear from others in the group
> concerning those comments.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
>
> Now that the JPA statement is nearing conclusion, I ask for
> agreement/disagreement on this IGC consensus statement about the IGF Review
> Process. Below is the latest version proposed by McTim. Michael Gurstein
> made some very good comments which have not been discussed or included in
> the statement. If you do not speak up, may we take your silence for assent?
>
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been actively
> engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of the UN WSIS
> global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates the UN Internet
> Governance Forum (IGF) on its successful implementation of the principle of
> mutlistakeholderism from 2006 until the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad
> Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in the IGF process by
> providing workshops and dialogues based on the mutltistakeholder principle.
> However, the IGC is concerned about the lack of participation by the
> developing world in the IGF and the counter-proposal to creating an
> exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of
> discussion.
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the review
> should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive participation.
>
> More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of the current process
> could be spent in the search for ways to foster more active inclusion of
> rarely heard and developing country voices through, but not limited to,
> remote participation.
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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