<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><DIV>I always get nervous when a debate or dialogue turns to criticism of anyone who criticizes. There is no point in objecting to a stated need for improvements. And as we see here it is self perpetuating. As someone could conceivably object to my objection of A's objection, to B's objection about objections.<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> "governance@lists.cpsr.org" <governance@lists.cpsr.org>; Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wed, November 24, 2010 2:59:18 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> RE: [governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation<BR></FONT><BR>Izumi<BR>I have a bit of trouble understanding your statements in this section:<BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were<BR>> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is<BR>> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of<BR>> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for<BR>> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the
original<BR>> text), <BR><BR>Is it your position that the IGF is an unqualified success that needs no improvement? <BR>That is certainly not my position, or even the position of the many people within this caucus that I know and talk to. <BR><BR>>"recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement<BR>> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF<BR>> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process<BR>> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These<BR>> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no<BR>> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something<BR>> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is<BR>> clearly not the case.<BR><BR>I do not understand the need for such a defensive approach to the IGF. <BR>The idea that any criticism or drive for improvement means that it is inherently flawed
seems to reproduce the kind of polarization we saw when ICANN was challenged during the WSIS process. There were those who believed - quite erroneously, it turned out - that one must either defend it uncritically, or else one was supporting the ITU and a "UN takeover of the Internet." Those are false dichotomies and I see the same pattern being recreated here. Why?<BR><BR>--MM<BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR> <A href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For all list information and functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<BR><BR>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t</DIV></DIV></div></body></html>