[governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire - Clean version

[Izumi AIZU]

I should take out Avri from the list of those who supported the text.
She only mentioned that "it is a good and fair set of responses".
Sorry for the confusion.

izumi



2010/11/19 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>:
> As the deadline is approaching, and my working hours are also closing, 11:45 pm
> Tokyo time now on Friday, I like to close the Final Call for the
> consensus shortly.
>
> So far, I have recognized the following people expressed some degree
> of support for
> the Final Draft.
>
> Ian Peter
> Marilia Maciel
> Despite the fact that there are issues I would like us to be more
> strong or more specific, I generally agree with this proposal.
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Baudoin SCHOMBE
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> Mostly agreed.
> we can suggest that “Solutions & Recommendations
> regarding governance common issues may please be vetted through
> consensus. Other suggestions, too.
> Yuliya Morenets
> Parminder
> (with minor changes as per Co-coordinators judgment, like the ISOC point)
> Lee McKnight
> Tracy Kackshaw
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Avri Doria
> i think it is a good and fair set of responses
> Ginger Praque
> Fouad Bajwa
> Graciela
>
> A total of 16.
>
> The following people expressed disagreement:
>
> William Drake
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
> A total of 2.
>
> The following people expressed substantial additional suggestions
> and/or comments,
> who have largely supported the final draft.
> Unfortunately we cannot put these into our text this time since we did
> not have sufficient amount of time to reach agreement or [rough
> consensus].
>
>
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> suggest "messages from the IGF", not “recommendations”
> "IGF enhances its function and could become, inter alia, an
> observatory, a clearinghouse, an early warning system of what happen
> in other forums."
>
> Migue Alcaine - suggest "messages from the IGF", not
> “recommendations”, get rid of "rough consensus"
> for 6a. IGF Secretariat will not be able to dedicate funds from its
> current level of funding in its voluntary fund for the engagement of
> Developing country actors. Either we can insist in inviting or
> strenghtening the voluntary fund and dedicate the additional funds to
> the engagement of developing countries or we can invite governments or
> the UN SG to consider a small transfer from the UN regular budget to
> the aforementioned IGF voluntary fund and dedicate such funds for the
> engagement of developing countries. I am suggesting a transfer around
> US$200,000 annually. Independently of the source of the funds, they
> should serve to make sinergies with the actors already improving the
> engagement of developing countries.
>
> Katitza Rodriguez
> I disagree with the use of the word "rough consensus".
> Agree with "Messages from IGF"
> Consensus with other stakeholders is a different approach and not an easy task.
> I would like to explore more the proposal table by Wolfgang
> support also Miguel's proposal
>
> There have also been good amount of debate whether reference to OECD
> and Council of Europe is acceptable or not, in relation to the issue
> of how to promote the participation of developing countries into
> global policy making and governance.
>
> Will send another note.
>
> izumi
>
____________________________________________________________
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