[CS Bureau] PrepCom 3 - logistics planning proposal

[Robert Guerra]

On 14-Aug-05, at 11:23 PM, YJ Park wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
>
>> frank comments:
>>
>
> Let me add facts to your comments.
>
>
>> YJ has not been active at all on the governance list. I would not
>> want a confrontation with her as was the case @ PC 2.
>>
>
> I already expressed my concerns in the current "governance" email list
> discusion & decision-making or so-called consensus reaching process
> at PrepCom II CS meeting and in the plenary/governance list.

The civil society response to the wgig report has gone through 2  
rounds of inputs - both after the report came out, and over the past  
few days. there has been considerable input from a wide variety of  
people - both new to the wsis, and veterans. I haven't yet seen any  
input from you.


>
> Secondly, CS in the WSIS is about to explore different future plans
> of institutionalizing Internet Governance. Do you think CS in the WSIS
> would have a "mono" position over Internet Governance discussion?
>
institutionalizing  - well, that's one option being discussed. reform  
and options in the IG space would be a better description - and as  
such, no "mono" position as you mention is there.

The WGIG report, composed by a group - including several CS members  
did not come up with  1 recommendation as you suggest, but 4. As  
well, the background paper mentioned in several places that lack of  
consensus was common.

> If so, you are very "optimistic".:-) And it is "healthy" situation  
> as long
> as people in the process are willing to respect and accept such  
> diversity.
>
i don't quite understand your comment. The discussions and iterative   
drafting has been cordial, respectful and respective of diversity of  
opinions. So for me,  It's actually worked quite well.

>
>> There is much serious work to be done - and any time allotted should
>> be done so in a strategic fashion.  Can you ask her as to - what -
>> she would be taking about.
>>
>
> Hmm... I am about to be offended by your statement and the way you  
> are handling this matter. But let me get you one more chance.
>

I am just saying that speaking slots and sessions should be treated  
as a scarce resource , which in fact they are.


It is common practice to ask perspective panellists & conference  
speakers as to what they will be speaking about. Others are being  
asked the same question - i think it appropriate for you as a  
possible panelist to tell us what you might be speaking about.   
That's all.



> Your explanation about serious works and my slot will be appreciated.

I maintain my position - PrepCom 3 will be a very serious meeting,  
far more so that prepcom 2. Positions are being articulated and  
developed now. Should you  have any position on the WGIG report, or  
any other aspects of IG I would ask that you make it known - better  
yet, contribute it to the official process like many others have.

I look forward to hearing your positions, specifically what your  
views are on the forum,   the proposed forum models , and next steps  
going forward. Have you an opinion on my recent post about Elliot  
Noss's article on WGIG & ICANN?


On a broader point - we are talking about content and not logistics.  
The bureau was mandated to be focused on logisitcs - and as such, i  
really don't see why there seems to be an issue in having the caucus  
that has been generally accepted by all to be the space where IG gets  
discussed to  give the assembled CS on the 18th a review on the IG  
issues.

it should be the caucus that decides on the speakers, correct? if  
not, then please share your views on what process we should use to  
decide who speaks instead of the caucus.



regards

Robert