AW: [governance] VS: Next Steps

[Roland Perry]

In message <80FCAAE3-3A97-4DCC-A101-EDBB5B90CF0D at acm.org>, at 07:56:14 
on Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes
>
>On 21 Dec 2010, at 05:38, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>> Before discussing in detail a Plan B or C, we should try to form a 
>>strong "Group of the 20" which would work inside the WG on IGF 
>>Improvement and would have the capacity (and legitimacy) to produce, 
>>if needed, a "minority report" if no consensus between the (majority 
>>of) governmental and (the minority of) non-governmental members of the 
>>group is achievable until May 2011.

I'm wondering what the actual deadline for a report in front of the CSTD 
in May is. Last year, 8th March was the date that most of the 
internal-to-UN reports were dated.

Resolutions can be proposed and written during the meeting, but input 
papers probably have a deadline (mindful that last year Sha's report 
from the Sharm Consultation, originally intended to go direct to ECOSOC, 
was only allowed at CSTD because no member state raised an objection to 
it being only available untranslated).

>So, the IGC has a list of 10 possible candidates for the 5.  Are any of 
>these viable candidates for the academic and technical community in 
>order to maximize the placement of those chosen. Did we do sufficient 
>outreach in forming that group to have included people who are not IGC 
>regulars in the group of proposed members?

You'd have to ask the nomcom.

>Who chooses the Academics and Technical Community members?

If the Technical Community turn up wearing mainly 'International' 
badges, and Academics from this Caucus wearing 'Civil Society' badges, 
there's a bit of a vacuum here.

>Who chooses business?

ICC almost certainly.

> Who chooses International organizations?

This is an odd one, because it was looking difficult to find five 
'Intergovernmental' organisations. If International actually excludes 
Intergovernmental, then as Wolfgang suggests, it's pretty easy to fill 
it from a group of Ecosystem players more often called "Technical 
community".

>Probably need for the co-cordinators, or maybe someone designated by 
>the co-cordinators, to do outreach to the movers and shakers in the 
>other stakeholders group to see how we form/coordinate this beast.  I 
>think it might be interesting if the stakeholder groups could actually 
>present the proposed Group of 20 to the Chair.

Sounds like you need an "action committee" of at least one person from 
each of the four constituencies. Having worked out exactly who fits 
where.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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