[governance] Re: the continuing NN debate

[David Allen]

Of course, it is the _process_ of multi-stakeholder participation that IGF has opportunity to move forward - what are the conditions for that process to work, and so forth.

Along that way, the extent that CS organizes itself to be an effective partner, particularly to trial innovations in process, with some robustness, can contribute to useful outcomes.

David

At 8:32 AM +0200 9/6/06, Avri Doria wrote:
>hi,
>
>personally, i think so too. i am afraid that governments would use the process of a Framework Convention to shut everyone else out. they still believe that they are the only actors with legitimacy. and since 'legitimacy' is self defined by governments, it stands to reason that they will not lightly give way.
>
>this is not to say, that they would not give token observer status to some few from CS and the private sector - especially the private sector whose company they seem to prefer. but neither the civil society nor the private sector participants would have any meaningful participation when it comes to deliberations or to making any of the decisions.
>
>a.
>
>On 6 sep 2006, at 07.39, McTim wrote:
>
>>I have to say, I agree with all that Norbert has written below!
>>
>>On 9/6/06, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>"Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>Wouldn't the details of the text of such a "Framework Convention"
>>>be likely to get decided at a diplomatic conference with little or
>>>no representation of NGOs?
>>
>>Precisely!
>>
>>--
>>Cheers,
>>
>>McTim
>>$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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