[governance] Meeting adjourned

[Marilia Maciel]

Hi Roland. Broader policy dialogue was the language used by the UN
resolution, people did not come up with it today. I do not think there is
any secret agenda there, the aim is to link the IGF to all relevant
organizations, including the many in the UN that have a role in WSIS
implementation.

The discussion today was carried out in a multistakeholder spirit, Much more
than I have imagined. We set on the table together and could speak on equal
foot. Several countries, such as India and Iran, clearly remarked the
importance of the presence and inputs of other actors. I feel that in
general there is respect for the presence and opinions of non-gov actors.

We did not have many observers, but I would be ok in istening to them. The
only problem I could see in a completely open group would be that of the
number os speakers. You know governments... If one speaks than others cannot
lag behind and it takes long to close the round of subscriptions.

I think that on the two moments of more tension and paralisis of the debate,
the stakeholders gather and tried to reach an agreement on drafts. In my
view, negotiation was effective and none of the parts was intransigent.
There was some disruptions and we ended up leaving the agenda to be adopted
only tomorrow mostly because of inability of the chair and very few comments
that were not constructive.

Best,

Marilia

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <AANLkTiknHfhSadSA7ytMeKhqjYE7HtwE9A3O3mpGyawm at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 02:05:44 on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes
>
>
>  The point we could not agree with is - how to improve IGF - in terms
>> of linking IGF to broader dialogue on Internet governance.
>>
>
> Is "broader dialogue" code for "discussions in the ITU", or something else?
>
> Broader could mean "more participants involved", or "more topics involved".
> Either [or both] would be quite possible, given what the IGF has achieved so
> far (early days, only five years...)
>
> Do you think the discussion today has benefited from being fully
> multi-stakeholder [the +15 attendees] and from having no observers? Does
> everyone in the room fell they have some ownership of the position at the
> end of the day, or is there a battle-line developing, and if so between
> whom?
> --
> Roland Perry
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110225/5540a115/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t