<!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:5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Hi</span></font>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br>
</span></font>
<div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">On Jul 16, 2009, at
8:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote:</span></font></div>
<font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-size: 18px;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</span></font>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> <font><font><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Just so my position
is clear I am happy with the “may suffer” compromise, or alternatively
with Bill’s text. But as others are clearly opposed to Bill’s text and
it won’t pass consensus, I will not oppose “may suffer”. The question
now is whether inclusion with “may suffer” will be accepted in a
consensus statement or whether the whole paragraph should be dropped.
My reading is the paragraph should be in the text unless a a
significant number of people oppose it.<br>
</span></font></font></font></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-size: 18px;"><br>
</span></font>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Likewise, the text
demanding recommendations won't pass consensus. McTim is opposed,</span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
He said, ' I can live with that' to Jeremy's ' As a compromise I would
accept changing "will suffer" to "may suffer" as the only direct
comment on the text under discussion.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"> and I'm opposed, on
procedural more than substantive grounds.</span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Completely misses me.... Why dont you just tell what you want. Can we
just hear your views on the subject. Coordinators can decide the
procedure. Franky, and I am sorry to be blunt, the following para
really hasnt conveyed much to me at all. Basically, if I read it right,
you are saying that you really have not much problem in our seeking
non-binding statement in the soft manner that the present draft seeks
it - but, you have a problem that we are going ahead with adopting a
text when some *other* people are opposed to it. Who??? We come back to
the same question. Why cant you be clearer, Bill. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"> Re: the latter,
I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate (yes, that's what would be
involved) recs necessarily would turn out to be disaster---it would
depend on a whole bunch of unknowns about modalities and focus etc on
which open dialogue would be needed to arrive at some clarity.
Equally, I'm not convinced that trying to negotiate recs necessarily
would be a panacea for all that ails the IGF, or IG more generally. </span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Is there a panacea for anything anywhere. thats a very weak argument
which can be used against practically every act. Can we have something
more solid please. This is holding up an important IGC statement.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"> But re: the former,
I am definitely convinced that we cannot move forward via processes in
which one side of a polarized discussion wins by sheer persistence,
waving away the other side's views, implying that if people don't agree
then they are spineless jellyfish unwilling to stand up for the public
interest, etc. <br>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
No, there is no problem with holding one view or the other- who can be
sure which one is more in public interest. But not to hold a view, and
say i am doing it for others, which others not being clear - well,
yes, i do have some problem with it. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">How a statement
saying caucus members have various views but all want an open dialogue
on the matter could be unacceptable is beyond me. </span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
There has been a mail or two holding a somewhat different view on
practically everything we have ever adopted as IGC statement. So then
why not have every one of our statement say - some think so but others
also think so - some what rights others are not so sure - some see IGF
as a valuable organisation others do not, some want CIRs discussed
others do not, ............ We will look like a really effective
advocacy group, that we set ourselves out to be in our mandate. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5FB66CB4-F11A-4107-AD98-9515F74382A3@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"> Even for people who
want the IGF to be doing recs, I don't think insisting on this ex ante
makes tactical sense. Calling for an open dialogue on the matter would
seem more likely to provide a lever to nudge things in the "right"
direction (let's see who would stand up and oppose an open dialogue)
than simply demanding something that many other key parties strongly
oppose.</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">On Jul 16, 2009, at
7:33 AM, Parminder wrote:</span></font></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span"
size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><font
class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br>
</font>I am not sure about the other side's position, and the
firmness of it. Ian did agree earlier to the 'non-binding' part - and
to the whole statement as it stands. Bill strongly suggested that it is
not really so much his view (correct me if I am wrong but that is what
I read from his email) but that of some significant others. Now who
are these hidden others who do not want to step up and share their
views. And if they do not care to, IGC statement can go without their
views. The basis of IGC's positions is deliberation based consensus,
and if people do not want to submit to this then it is entirely their
choice. </span></font></div>
</blockquote>
<font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-size: 18px;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div>We have been talking about recommendations off and on for four
years now. Back when WGIG released its report in July 2005 I think we
expressed cautious support for the idea of recs--indeed, those of us in
the WGIG CS contingent were much involved in writing the text that
morphed into the TA mandate---because at that point the IGF was an
abstraction, and some of us certainly were hoping for a more
substantial institutional formation in which it could have worked. But
after IGF was established, basically as an annual conference, people's
thinking evolved in different directions, and I don't recall (anyone
else?) that we ever again expressed support for recs in the many caucus
statements to follow. I don't have time to go digging through the
list archive, particularly since our subject lines are frequently not
indicative of message content, but at various points along the way I
believe that people like Wolfgang, Jeanette, and Adam have spoken
against recs (don't want to put words in their mouths, they can please
correct me if I'm wrong) and that others have as well. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That many people are for whatever reasons are not participating
in this discussion does not mean we should just wave away their
previously expressed stances. As Parminder agreed, "you snooze you
lose" is not a good basis for consensus decision making. Of course, if
those who opposed before now want to reverse and support rec
negotiations, that would change things, but absent that it's not a
consensus position in my view.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>