[IGFmaglist] Possible WG - ACCESS (was: Re: IGF: Intersessional and WG Proposals)

Ginger Paque virginiap at diplomacy.edu
Mon May 16 18:40:51 EDT 2016


Hello Lynn and everyone,

Lynn, thanks for addressing this, particularly since our agenda is full,
and everyone is working on priorities important to them and the IGF. I know
that the Secretariat is very aware of issues faced by persons with
disabilities (and online participants). I think it would help to analyse
whether the Secretariat prefers to address these issues internally, or if a
WG can assist in reviewing processes and procedures, reaching out to the
community, and channeling voices from the community. In addition to the
work being done, this is an area where the perception of the global
community, and of the IGF as a continuing example of best practices, should
be considered as well.

I'm willing to co-chair and work on this WG, if we decide it is a priority
that can be effectively addressed by a WG, and if there is support/interest
for its work.

Best wishes,
Ginger

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
DiploFoundation

*Upcoming online courses: *Humanitarian Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy,
Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Infrastructure and Critical
Internet Resources, Multilateral Diplomacy. http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=26d5253c70&e=bc0aff4eba>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> Thank you to everyone for the comments and especially to those who have
> volunteered.  The Secretariat and I are preparing an update on the status
> of WGs, BPFs, etc.  and that should be out Tuesday.
>
> I agree with Renata’s observation that coupling discussions on diverse WGs
> can make it hard to follow the discussion (and am experiencing that first
> hand) so let’s use specific titles to thread these discussions.  That
> should make them easier to follow.
>
> To that point, I would like to ensure Ginger’s comments below on the
> possibility of a WG on access were not missed in all the emails.  It is too
> important an area to just let slip by.   Is there interest/support for such
> a WG?
>
> Best,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Ginger Paque <VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the explanations and nuances of this discussion. I agree with
> Marilyn that the issue of gender and abuse needs to be ongoing.
> >
> > I think that gender and access is a broader priority issue, because we
> need to make sure we address getting online and opening doors (while, of
> course, still making sure these doors are safe to open). I join Renata,
> Jac, and others in support of a BPF on gender and access as an important,
> ongoing part of IGF work.
> >
> > I had earlier brought up the possibility of a WG on access that included
> online participation and disability efforts. There was no interest
> manifested, as other important priorities are being addressed. While online
> participation is being supported on an ongoing basis by the IGF Secretariat
> and team, I am concerned whether we are giving disability issues the
> attention they need.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ginger
> >
> > Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> > DiploFoundation
> >
> > Upcoming online courses: Humanitarian Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy,
> Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Infrastructure and Critical
> Internet Resources, Multilateral Diplomacy.
> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160516/a7c4264c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list