<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CF2B2051-ABF1-4A94-A2C0-46DC538BEEB1@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Hi
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 13, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Bill<br>
<br>
Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles have considerably
changed </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">subsequent
to my email</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Yes, I wrote a paper two years ago because of an email you wrote two
hours ago. Rather prescient, no? ;-)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I havent read your paper but know that you have consistently spoken of
and advocated on this list and outside WSIS principles as only
'multilateral, transparent, democratic and multistakeholder' and
nothing else ever. This is matter of record in IGC archives and the
same is true of the (IGC statement) text you proposed to Ginger in
reply to question 3 on WSIS principles objecting to the present draft
highlighting the rights issues in response to this question as grossly
mis-informed. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CF2B2051-ABF1-4A94-A2C0-46DC538BEEB1@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>It is? I thought self-selection means one selects oneself to
something. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
That was wrong English on my part. i mean selectivity or selective
interpretation. thanks for correcting. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CF2B2051-ABF1-4A94-A2C0-46DC538BEEB1@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the substantive/development side, the principles are arguably
less systematic and coherent, an artifact of the negotiation process
and phrases particular governments wanted in. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I cannot at all see how any of the following four principles "“should
ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate
access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the
Internet, taking into account multilingualism” are less systematic and
coherent than "'multilateral, transparent, democratic and
multistakeholder". I find them perfectly clear and coherent. In fact
we have earlier agreed that democratic (in international sense) and
multistakeholder are very unclear terms. So the choice of one set of
principles in ones advocacy over other is basically political, isnt it.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CF2B2051-ABF1-4A94-A2C0-46DC538BEEB1@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>But one can argue that taken together they reflect a normative
stance that IG should promote development, even if there's no agreement
on exactly what that means or how it could be achieved. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Thats a bit dismissive. Isnt everything here a normative stance. Is it
any more clear how multilateral, democratic, transparent and
multistakeholder principles can be achieved. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CF2B2051-ABF1-4A94-A2C0-46DC538BEEB1@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy here,
and am spending time on this because I consider it an important
discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end with text to
the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just not respectful. <br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I suggested that if we disagree, let's agree to disagree. This widely
used and understood phrase does not mean "do not reply" or
have anything to do with respect or its absence. And in fact, we are
actually agreeing, at least in part; stop the presses, no? :-)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
You know that is not the part I replied to. i replied to the part on
your advise for us not to subject the list any further to bilateral
soliloquies. Making an argument and at its end to say 'lets now stop
it' is what is not done, and is disrespectful. parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>