[governance] Re: caucus contribution -> recommendations of WG on IGF improvements

[Norbert Bollow]

So, would it work to just replace the sentence “Especially the
following recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements should be
implemented immediately:” with “In our view, the implementation of the
following three recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements is
very important:”?

Assuming that the proposed resolution to McTim's comment on paragraph 3
is accepted, the beginning of section A would then read as follows:

  A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements

  There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis a vis the
  fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy
  questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of.

  In our view, the implementation of the following three
  recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements is very important:

  (three quotes from the WG’s report
  http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf
  follow)

Is that acceptable?


Greetings,
Norbert


Am Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:00:16 -0500
schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
> 
> I think it would be fine for the caucus to give its support to any of
> the recommendations of the WG-IGF.    And I have no gripe with
> supporting these three recommendations.
> 
> I am just against any presumption that this should be automatic
> because the CSTD & GA ordered it.
> 
> I also want to make sure that the IGC statement is not used in any
> manner to discredit the MAG and it full potential to act as advisors
> to the UNSG on any aspect of the IGF.  Though I do want to require
> them to always hold consultations  (online or face to face)before
> deciding. As someone who is not on the MAG, I want to strengthen its
> position as interpreters of the will of the IGF and the advisors to
> the UNSG or his representatives.  I do not want to relgate them to
> the role of a program committee.  The CSTD is not our oversight
> organization.
> 
> 
> So for me it is a matter of neither stomping our foot with
> 'impatience' nor of making statement about immediate implementation,
> but about saying that we think these are good recommendations that we
> beleive the MAG should do something about.
> 
> It is more a matter of tone, of not surrendering the independence of
> the IGF and of not undercutting the MAG in its role as the one that
> advises the UNSG and that works with the Secretariat to effect any
> agreed upon changes after consultation with the stakeholders.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to get consensus on
> > how binding / definitive the recommendations of WG on IGF
> > improvements should be taken to be.
> > 
> > I therefore propose that we develop a formulation that avoids
> > taking a position on that specific aspect, while communicating
> > eagerness to see those three specific recommendations implemented
> > that we are citing.
> > 
> > Is that an acceptable path forward for the Caucus statement?
> > 
> > (Individual Caucus members would of course, independent of the
> > Caucus statement, be free make a written contribution of their own
> > on whether an additional consultative process is appropriate before
> > the recommendations of WG on IGF improvements are implemented.)
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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