[governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES

[McTim]

+1 to all of what Bill said.
-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:17 PM, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> Please reply YES if you agree that the statement below should be put forward by the IGC for the next IGF open consultation meeting.
>
> Thanks Jeremy for taking on board the comments and edits people have suggested.  I'd be a yes, but I wonder if you really need to close editing and call consensus now; why not give it a day for final tweaks, since the focus in the first instance is a statement for the consultation rather than an input to the synthesis paper?
>
> If it's still possible: I wish you'd not deleted mention of the working group sentence from the para on intersessional activities.  Why not just replace "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members plus outsiders" with "The IGF could also organize thematic working groups..." and leave the precise modalities of participation and input TBD?  To me at least, it would have been nice to keep the idea on the table in some form...
>
> Also I wonder if there isn't a way to address this,
>
> On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
>> "The IGC is ready to make innovative contributions to enhance the present "Secretariat-MAG-Open Consultation" mechanism for the preparation of IGF meetings."
>>
>> therefore, to me, just means that we look to the new experiment of no MAG meetings post feb, or in subsequent years, perhaps even ever, with hopeful anticipation.... I think that is a strange view to project for a group  which put in so much effort in trying to shape IGF as a purposeful body in the global Internet policies landscape.
>
> Parminder is there a sentence or two on what such contributions might comprise and how to ensure a more purposeful agenda that would satisfy your concerns?  Personally I don't see that the text implies we look forward to no MAG.  Elsewhere we say that representation in the MAG should be more balanced, mention uncertainty about its rotation while renewal is in the air, and refer to it as part of the intersessional work we think could be built out.  But you'd like a more declarative 'we want a MAG' sentence?
>
> 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



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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