[governance] Comments on draft submission to the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF

[parminder]

On Friday 11 March 2011 09:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Here is a summary of the comments that have been made on our draft
> statement at http://www.igcaucus.org/digress.it/, and the suggested
> changes I'll be making to the statement in response.  Due to the timing
> of the deadline, I have no choice but to put the statement to a
> consensus call later today, so if you have any other comments, please
> make them immediately.
>
> PARA 1: A grammatical change suggested by Norbert; no issue with this.
>
> PARA 2: McTim suggests we get more specific about the IGF's lack of
> progress in fulfilling paras 72(b) and 72(c) of the Tunis Agenda
> (facilitating discourse and interfacing).  I suggest the simplest way to
> do this is just by adding "We give some recommendations on how the IGF
> could do this in sections 2 and 5 below."
>
> PARA 4: Norbert makes a similar remark about our observations on paras
> 72(e) and 72(g) (IG4D and recommendations).  Again, the best way to deal
> with this is to forward-reference: "Our suggestions for how the IGF
> might make better progress in these areas follow in sections 3 and 4
> respectively."
>
> PARA 11: McTim and Izumi said we are a bit too ambitious here.  McTim
> took objection to suggesting that we "integrate the IGF's outcomes into
> the programmes of other institutions".  So I propose we say "increase
> the visibility of the IGF's outcomes within other institutions".
If integrating into programmes of other institutions' is going too far, 
'increasing the visiblity of the outcomes within other organizations' is 
too weak, and something, imho, not with much real meaning. We are 
looking for clear suggestions of IGF improvements here - about things 
that can be done and need to be done- and this 'increasing the 
visibility' formulation really doesnt suggest anything to me. I propose 
something in between these two formulations.

'IgF outcomes should be appropriately connected to the processes of 
other IG institutions'


> Izumi
> didn't want to suggest rapporteurs who would "act as a proactive conduit
> for feedback from those institutions".  So I suggest "receive feedback
> from those institutions" instead.
>
> So, I will prepare an online poll to gauge consensus on the statement as
> it stands with the above amendments.  If possible, please provide any
> further comments (either here on the list or on the Web site) BEFORE I
> post the poll, ie. within the next six hours or so.
>
> Thanks!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110311/3b3e547d/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