[governance] IGF Improvement

[Izumi AIZU]

Jeremy and Adam, and all.

It's so bad that the rumor sound like very much true.

But, I may argue (for the sake of making clear consensus based
on wide consideration) or ask - is the non-participation, boycotting
the process really the best option now?

Not participate to which process? Working Group only, to  which in any case
if they exclude CS members we cannot participate.
Or coming consultation process as a whole including on IGF and on EC?

To me, rather, we need to raise our strong voice, joint letter with perhaps
many more organizations than ICC and ISOC, and continue to "lobby",
attend meetings, as observer then request for speaking slots etc,
with clear reservation that we do not approve this approach.

An early withdrawal may make just our presence very low in the main stage,
unless we have a very strong and visible alternative forum.

I also don't think forming joint body between CS and Private Sector
only becomes good alternative. Unless some good number of governments
support and/or participate, CS and PS joint is not quite "multi-stakeholoder"
organ in my vew.

I do not mean we should accept the decision - not at all.
And I am open to different views.

izumi


2010/12/8 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about the
> CSTD working group is correct.
>
> The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and
> Internet community is simply to not participate.  To immediately write a
> joint letter stating we will not participate.
>
> Adam
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t