<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<br>
<br>
Drake William wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:8B74B070-1701-4EA4-B3FD-BB34F08EA1DE@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Drake William wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Hopefully the Brazil-India-South Africa text proposing a strictly intergovernmental group will be posted somewhere….
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
It is enclosed. parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8B74B070-1701-4EA4-B3FD-BB34F08EA1DE@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Best,
Bill
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Bill -
Did you feel that the NRO or ISOC comments were off-topic?
/John
(who spoke on behalf of the NRO)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Uh, kinda awkward on a list…but I guess I asked for it. No, I thought you were more on point than most. Your first statement about governments and numbers groups being increasingly active in each others' spaces illustrated the "EC is already happening on a distributed basis" premise. On the other hand, they're not necessarily denying that. They're saying a) it's not enough, so governments also need an isolated space free from pesky stakeholders in which they can more comfortably talk about unidentified problems that can only be addressed properly by unidentified principles of their sole making; b) the TA mandates this, so it must be done; c) it's the natural order of things, since the UN has an IGO for other every other issue-area like energy, transport, etc, so why not Internet; and so on…Your second intervention asking how a government-only process fits with the TA spoke to b). But it would have been more effective if you'd directed it to one of the government propone
nts; asking the chair to explain was an invitation for it to be waved off on grounds of neutrality. I think you had a third comment too but I didn't take notes, maybe was multitasking. Didn't hear ISOC's. Anyway, I'd have liked to have heard some probing questioning of premise a), although it probably wouldn't have mattered, the alignments weren't going to change based on oratory and reasoning. Just would have been nice to have collectively put up a better front so the situation was more plain and open to challenge later on...
2 cents,
Bill
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>