[governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17

[Izumi AIZU]

I think it is a little premature to come up with its own names
or Domain names for the new cross-sector mechanism.

I like to keep it loose and informal, and mainly doing the
coordination among the like-minded groups by "liaisons"
but not to share the whole members and bring into
one "body" such as council or whatever.

I mean, on the one hand taking the lessons seriously
and we need to focus what should be done, but I think
that is more of issue or task based functions first, then
the mechanism or form should follow the functions as
it develops.

Jeremy and I have corresponded with our Nomcom, Ian and asked
if they like to select 5 members for the WG, instead of 10, and
I guess they will discuss within Nomcom and may proceed that.

Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector
WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and
present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision
worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function" first.

Of course, I welcome other ideas,

izumi


2010/12/22 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
> Dear all
>
> I still need to post my thoughts  on the CSTD meeting last week. Much of my
> energy in the last few days has gone into trying to get back to South Africa
> from Europe.
>
> I think we do need a space for working on IGF improvements, but I think we
> shoudl steer clear from the language of 'council of ....'.  That implies
> representative structures which we have no legitimate claim to at present.
>
> As Roland says the proposed title is very close to CONGO which represents
> the ECOSOC accredited organisations.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 22/12/10 13:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> In message <D1391B85-75FE-410B-801F-BF12F76514F7 at ciroap.org>, at 08:10:00
>> on Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> writes
>>
>>> The new domain could be Council of Non-Governmental Stakeholders in
>>> Internet Governance - CoNGSIG (congsig.org is available)... thoughts?
>>
>> A bit close to the UN's CONGO, where "NGO" also has a rather more formal
>> meaning, and requires accreditation with UN. Perhaps we wouldn't want that
>> baggage?
>>
>> Not a serious suggestion but how about United non-Nations? Are we assuming
>> that Intergovernmental Organisations are excluded, and International ones
>> (see the recent WG composition) included.
>>
>> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> writes
>>
>>> www.igfnongov.org
>>
>> Is the idea to have just a "plan C" IGF every year, or something reaching
>> a bit further into the IG arena?
>>
>
____________________________________________________________
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