[IGFmaglist] Need for September MAG meeting
Peter Dengate Thrush
barrister at chambers.gen.nz
Sun Apr 19 05:46:19 EDT 2015
I'm happy to have fewer meetings if we can organise our work that way.
Your question turns on 3 issues- the MAG getting enough work done in May so that it doesn't need a further f2f meeting, not needing synchronising with the WSIS +10, and productive liaison work with the regional and national IGFs.
We will know the answer to the first question in just over a month and to the second 2-3 weeks after that.
Can we review this towards the close of the May MAG meeting?
I'm interested in hearing about the views of the UN PGA on the WSIS review.
Peter Dengate Thrush
> On 17/04/2015, at 12:42 pm, <karklinsj at gmail.com> <karklinsj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear MAG members,
> I would like to raise the issue concerning the necessity to organize the third MAG meeting in September.
> Assuming that the May meeting will lead us to the agreement on the workshops that would be organized during the Brazil IGF and to other issues related to the IGF (main sessions, NMI liaisonship, inter-seasonal work, BP stream) and we would continue regular on-line conversation I wonder what the MAG would address in September?
> When we initially discussed the feasibility of September meeting our thoughts were focused on possible synergies between the IGF and WSIS + 10 review processes. He current UN PGA seems to have different ideas related to his task of consulting stakeholders on the substance of WSIS review. The first preparatory meeting of the WSIS + 10 review process is scheduled for early June. It my provide some clarity on the topic. But in the meantime, we need to decide how to proceed.
> If the inter-sessional activities will be enthusiastically supported by different national and regional IGF and the open-ended editorial group will have wealth of material to work on maybe we could think of replacing the MAG meeting with that of editorial group? The place and exact time of the meeting should be discussed, of course. If we will not pursue with the inter-sessional work track for one or another reason then we would go straight to Joao Pessoa.
> I would appreciate your thoughts on the above.
> Thank you in advance.
> Sent from Surface
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Igfmaglist