[governance] advisors added to WG on enhanced cooperation?

[Adam Peake]

Hi Sala,

Suggestion was that one of the WG members ask, not the IGC or
coordinators.  And that was done, and we have seen Peter Major's
reply.  And that's good.

Best,

Adam



On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It would be a bad idea to write a letter to try and talk about openness. The chair has his discretion as to who he wishes to invite to his meeting. The fact that we have representatives on the WG already is sufficient.
>
> Also when Norbert wrote a letter to another stakeholder in his capacity, he came under fire. It would be unfair to get him to do the same thing now.
>
> Besides, we do not even know if there are advisors who have been brought in. For all we know, there are observers.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 12, 2013, at 9:59 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-------------- 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