[governance] Summary on IGC statement proposals

[Norbert Bollow]

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Dear all

According to by current best understanding (comments welcome!!!) here's
the current status and thoughts on what may be a reasonable path
forward, in regard to the various pending proposals for IGC statements.

I've tried to sort them in order of urgency.


1) Proposal to endorse the BestBits statement on WTPF

No drafting of a statement text required (IGC would simply sign on to
the statement that has already been drafted.)

Several IGC members have expressed support, no-one has opposed (yet?)

I think that it is reasonable for the coordinators to set a deadline
by which any opposition would need to be voiced, and if then no
opposition is voiced by that deadline, the proposal will be deemed to
have been approved by consensus.


2) Proposal for an IGC letter to request general openness of WGEC to
silent observers.

Since only a short text is needed, and the wording is unlikely to be
particularly contentious, I'd propose that no particular infrastructure
is needed to support wordsmithing, someone can simply propose text and
we can move on from there.


3) Open letter to IGC endorsing criticism of digital restrictions
management in HTml standards

Since only a short text is needed, and the wording is unlikely to be
particularly contentious, I'd propose that no particular infrastructure
is needed to support wordsmithing, someone can simply propose text and
we can move on from there.


4) Proposal for an IGC statement on a "public good" perspective of the
Internet.

The has been significant discussion and a draft text has been developed.
There is not full consensus in support of this draft text. As most
members of the caucus have been silent and only very few have voiced
opposition, it is not clear from the discussions whether there is
rough consensus. Those who oppose the draft statement have been
invited to propose textual changes that would take their concerns into
consideration and move the proposal closer to full consensus.

I think that a reasonable path forward would be for the coordinators
to set a deadline by which those who still oppose the current draft
are invited to propose changes that could potentially bring us closer
to full consensus. If no such changes are proposed by that deadline, it
would then be appropriate to organize a poll to help determine whether
there is rough consensus.


4) Proposed statement on RFC 6852

No text has been proposed yet.

If someone wishes to move work on this forward, please say so, and
I'll set up a work area for an initial informal drafting process, the
result of which can thereafter be the starting point of a formal
consensus process.


Have I forgotten something?

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept


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