[governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation?

[William Drake]

Hi Norbert,

On May 11, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
>> But it'd also be nice
>> if there was a letter  to Peter from the coordinators on behalf of
>> the IGC saying we believe the meeting should be open to silent
>> observers generally (it's unlikely there'd be an unmanageable
>> flood).  Even better if such a letter was coordinated with other CS
>> coalitions, or even other stakeholder groups.  Then he'd have
>> something to reference when raising the issue with WG
>> members—preferably in advance of the meeting.  Any reason we can't do
>> this?
> 
> Since at least so far, no-one has spoken out against writing such a
> letter, I think it's likely that such a letter should reach consensus
> or at least rough consensus. So I think that there's no reason at all
> not to do this.
> 
> Hence I'd suggest that this just needs someone to go ahead and start
> drafting it...
> 
> *Looking around for volunteers*

If the letter's coming from you a coordinator, why not just draft it rather than wait for a group to form?  One paragraph saying the meeting should be open and transparent.

We have no caucus meeting scheduled during the IGF week per usual, no caucus input to the WTPF, no caucus input to the IGF meeting, and no caucus input to the WGEC.   Shouldn't such things get priority over concocting speech codes for the list etc?

Bill
-------------- 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