[governance] Re: Geneva

[william.drake at uzh.ch]

Hi

On May 9, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

During the busiest weeks there are few cities more expensive than
Geneva. Can pick up a room in a village like Annecy, but for Geneva
itself many hundreds if $$$.  Terrible city for meetings.  Very
expensive and food as well.

I'm just back from the grocery store so I can't argue.  But it's ok for governments that have Missions here, and of course that's what matters in a UN context…And per Nick and Suresh, there are some cost-cutting options like not staying in the center of town.

On 09-May-2013, at 6:43, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

On 08/05/2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH> wrote:

I'm only going to be able to make it for the first week (Geneva is so
expensive!), but would be glad to get together with some other caucus folk
while I'm there.  Regarding a joint statement, the Best Bits group is
putting one together for the WTPF,

Sure, but the more the merrier.  ITU staff and members have often cited the scarce responses in the few cases when they did do public comments as evidence that there's no real demand/need to  open up to civil society etc.  And a priori, one might think the caucus would want to respond to an intergovernmental statement on the conduct of multistakeholderism in Internet governance…

BTW will the BB be signable by individuals and networks this time, or just organizations with paid staff?

and I would support the caucus issuing
one for the IGF open consultations and MAG meeting as has already been
discussed, focusing on the implementation of the recommendations on IGF
improvements.

Not so much momentum there.  But IGC has no updated views on the conduct of the preparations and program for Bali?  The preliminary proposal process, the proposal to significantly reduce the number of workshops beyond what IGC recommended in February, MAG renewal, etc?

You're aware though, I presume, that the reason why there is only one civil
society submission is because the ITU is not receiving civil society
submissions?  The only reason why the Brown/Doria/Nwakanma/Shears statement
is up there is because they are members of the Informal Experts Group (IEG).
I've written a statement for Consumers International (which is at
http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/wtpf_position_statement.pdf), but
the ITU has refused to receive it.

Yes, and one would think this is precisely the sort of thing that civil society could usefully make some noise about.  There are other avenues than official submissions.  But if it's no longer possible to things like make statements, organize meetings, etc., ok...

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130509/099ec490/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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