<!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 text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
On Monday 24 October 2011 01:09 PM, McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxgM68GCeSOJvni5N0_Gw7T4FcH8b2kkqiQcxV_Cbnmmqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06 AM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><snip>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> So again, if indeed IBSA has shifted, it'd be great for them to say so.
And for more governments beyond Brazil and a distinct minority of other G77
to demonstrate that they take the IGF process seriously and will engage even
if it doesn't offer a path to intergovernmental control.
This is another myth that a strong IGF will get used to pave the path to
inter-governmental control
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think you have mis-read Bill's para above.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I dont see how? Can you pl explain<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxgM68GCeSOJvni5N0_Gw7T4FcH8b2kkqiQcxV_Cbnmmqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">snip
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
As Marilia suggests, with the meeting of WG on IGF improvements coming up,
it is time for the civil society to stand up and say if they are for a
stronger and more purposive IGF or not. My submission is that anyone not
ready to make the necessary changes in the IGF status quo is the one really
against multi-stakeholder policy making.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think that there are many in Dakar this week (actually doing MS
policy making) that might disagree with you on this.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
McTim, We have been over this many times. I have said often that I have
little problem with many models of technical standards and technical
policy making that the kind of organisations you mention do. My main
problem is with the kind of work OECD's Internet policy making
apparatuses do, by defualt for the whole world. They write policy
frameworks for search engines, for social media, for IP over the
Internet, privacy, and so on. And they do it in an undemocratic manner,
without including developing countries. And I find this as an
unacceptable model. Now, can you please specifically state your
position on these kinds of larger social pulbic policy issues, instead
of everytime responding to my emails concerning these issues with
descriptions of technical policy making systems. That would be very
useful to take this dialogue forward, especially since I have clearly
stated above my broad view about existing technical policy systems. (I
do have some problems with them, but that is not the primary burden of
my IG related engagements.)<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>