[governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5

[Lee W McKnight]

Keep up good work Izumi,

I agree Chair's proposal is acceptable if not perfect, but workable.  

When/if you get to speak: ask if all government reps opposing would consent to pose for a group photo after the meeting, since cs wishes to help them become (in-)famous ; )

Seriously: state that the Chair's proposal is acceptable to CS, anything less and CS will not participate, although governments are welcome to talk to themselves for as long as they wish.   

 It would be easy - relatively - for CS, tech and biz communities to just do our own report on IGF improvement, with an instant virtual distributed WG.  Govts could be accorded observer status if CS, biz & tech communities...choose ; )  

Lee
________________________________________
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:32 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5

Philippines
Don’t limit the numbers of stakeholders to participate, but WG be
limited to governments.

Portugal
Need to better understand your proposal.
WG – government plus stakeholders?

Chair
Both governments plus stakeholders, with no difference.

Portugal
Then I think it’s a good proposal.

Sri Lanka
Civil society can have same status as governments

Malaysia
Echo with Phillipines and Sri Lanka
We should not limit number of stakeholders to participate, and WG be
only by governments.

Cuba
Same as Ph, Sri Lanka

Chile
Support this proposal
Members can change the rules of procedure.

USG
We think this proposal is most worthy.
Thank the modality, good.
We associate with all who are in favor of this proposal.

India
We must express our surprise to the proposal.
In the morning, it was abundantly clear, putting stakeholders in same
footing is not acceptable and now allowed by current procedure.
We don’t think procedure can be changed.
5 for Academic and technical community, 5 for civil society and 5 for
private sector. But Tunis Agenda includes governments, civil society
and private sector, and Intergovermental organizations, where are
they?

Chair – I did mention that.

In any case, we align with Malaysia..

Chair – I did include IGOs.

Mozambique
It’s a good proposal.

Iran
Don't accept.

South Africa
surprising - this is advisory to Chair - not our understanding.
This is CSTD WG, not comfortable with Chair's proposal,
Academic and Civil society fall under one stakeholder.
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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