[Mmwg] RE: [governance] G77 contribution

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Avri is right, lets wait until we have the facts on the table. However we informal meeting with the G77+c - as we had with the USG and the EU - would be a good initiative. Could some Geneva based people investigate whether this would be possible on May, 19, over lunchtime? There is no need to have a statement befor such a meeting. The purpose of the meeting would be to imprtove mutual understanding, as we had with Ambassador Khan in the Pakistan embassy before PrepCom3. 

Wolfgang


-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
Sent: Sun 5/14/2006 12:10 PM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Cc: mmwg at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [governance] G77 contribution
 
Hi,

(i am copying the multistakeholder modalities wg on this since this  
is a topic for their consideration as well.  reference is being made  
to: http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/G77_9_March.pdf )

On 14 maj 2006, at 07.57, Parminder wrote:

> I agree with Bill that the IGC caucus must urgently take and  
> communicate a
> stand on a unified MAG at the earliest. We should address it to the  
> IGF
> secretariat and to national delegation including G77 + C.

while I think it is important to put out a statement on this i don't  
get the impression, at least not yet, that there is any immediate  
danger that the multistakeholder advisory group for the IGF is going  
to be cast as 3 separate bureaus.  i understand that there is a lot  
of push and pull at the moment on the composition of the  
multistakeholder advisory group, especially vis a vis the government  
representatives and the diversity balance that has delayed the  
announcement of the multistakeholder advisory group.


in terms of who a response should be addressed to, while copying any  
statement to the IGF is probably a good idea, i tend to think that  
the strongest approach would be to address the G77 itself and to send  
statements to the national delegations that make up the G77+China -  
especially when there are CS participants in the IGC from those  
countries who can translate the statements into local languages.

of course the first step is for some volunteers to draft a first daft.

in some sense, and this is more directed to the MMWG, maybe we have  
relaxed too soon on the assumptions of multistakeholder success.   
there is a long way to go, and every success is bound to be met with  
pressure to backslide.  and we still have not established the fact of  
full multistakeholder participation as an unavoidable precedent for  
all governance organizations.  it may be worth thinking of this as a  
long term objective that requires a concerted and focused campaign.

thanks
a.


PS, I have started spelling MAG out again because i was afraid that  
the idea that it was multistakeholder was getting lost in the  
shorthand of the acronym.  so as much as i hate the extra key strokes  
and misspell it constantly, it seems worth the effort.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance