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

[William Drake]

On Jan 14, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> 
> 
> I would suggest to delete the following para below which is the second substantial para of the draft statement:
> 
> However given that the IGF is not a traditional governmental organisation, it is important to ensure that its Secretariat and MAG are adequately accountable to the IGF's non-governmental stakeholders. Within the IGC, there are various views on how this can be best assured.  Some believe that the Secretariat should have a level of accountability to the MAG.  Others feel that it would improve the MAG's accountability if its members were taken to represent the stakeholder groups (but not the particular stakeholders) who appointed them.
> 
> Here is my reason: formally, the secretariat is accountable to the UNSG. The para above suggests instead that the secretariat is either accountable to no one or it is accountable to the stakeholder groups but not in a sufficient manner. Both options seem misleading to me.
> 
> Since there is no strong message in this para anyway, I think we don't lose much if we simply skip it.

I agree with this and Jeanette's proposal regarding the first substantive para.

Cheers,

Bill____________________________________________________________
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