[governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES or NO

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 29/01/2010, at 5:17 PM, William Drake wrote:

> 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...

I'm not going to withdraw the consensus call, but people may vote:

YES + thematic working groups
YES
NO

"YES + thematic working groups" means the statement that I posted already, plus this additional sentence as a penultimate paragraph: "The MAG should also organize thematic working groups to develop background material, IGF discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF."

I had taken this out because it met with objection.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
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