[governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of the

[Fouad Bajwa]

I support Jeanette's suggestions to follow the paragraph by paragraph
with appropriate language changes. Also, the IGC introduction should
go in the end or should not be briefer to the actual definition of the
caucus as in the charter. Let's continue with the para by para
observation.

The statement made last year doesn't have to be followed continuously
for all future statements so a new statement structure/presentation
can be evolved while keeping in line with the IGC Charter.


-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa


On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> Ok, why don't we start right away. I leave out the intro, which can be
> improved later I think.
>
> The first substantial para is the following:
>
> The IGC strongly supports the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder
> forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues.  However
> if, as we hope, the forum's mandate is to be extended for a further term,
> there are a number of adjustments that we believe should be taken into
> account, continuing the IGF's pattern of incremental improvement since its
> inauguration in 2006.  None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter
> the IGF as an institution; thus for example, we believe it should remain
> situated within the United Nations system, with a Secretariat provided by
> the UN.
>
> I agree with the spirit of this paragraph but would suggest that we try to
> be a bit more specific with regard to "situated within the United Nations
> system, with a Secretariat provided by the UN"
> since the present wording would support a new arrangement within the UN. For
> example, under the auspices of the ITU.  Perhaps we could say something to
> the effect that "the IGF, including its secretariat should remain situated
> within United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA".
>
> jeanette
>
> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Jeanette's suggested paragraph by paragraph approach.
>> 9 February is probably a more plausible target.
>>
>> Lee
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm
>> Subject: Re: [governance] PLEASE RESPOND - draft statement on reform of
>> the
>>
>> Hi Jeremy, thank you for drafting this statement. Parts of it I support,
>> others I don't agree with or think they are based on wrong assumptions.
>> Would it make sense to briefly discuss it paragraph by paragraph to find
>> out which elements find general support?
>>
>> jeanette
>>
____________________________________________________________
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