<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Resending without digital signature. It's been reported to me that
the list is messing up my emails and making them blank, and I think
the digital signature is to blame.<br>
<br>
On 18/05/12 15:32, Roland Perry wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com"
type="cite">In message <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:aba77ccf-26f3-49cf-8579-c0feb9e52540@email.android.com"><aba77ccf-26f3-49cf-8579-c0feb9e52540@email.android.com></a>,
at 08:01:59 on Fri, 18 May 2012, Avri Doria <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@acm.org"><avri@acm.org></a>
writes <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Without getting into the discussion over
the merits of the marketing <br>
campaign for Parminder's proposal, I have to admit I just do
not <br>
understand how turning over a process that according to the
agreed <br>
langauge of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within
IGF's <br>
scope to the CSTD or some other government dominated body
increases <br>
democratization. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nitin was always very clear that EC and IGF were separate
processes.</blockquote>
<br>
Which confused many of us, because he was so clearly wrong about
that. The EC and IGF paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda are
inseparable. In any case, this curious contention appeared to have
fallen by the wayside when finally EC was discussed at the Hyderabad
meeting. Indeed if anything, that discussion marked too much of an
about face, in which suddenly EC not only was *part* of the IGF
process, but was *fulfilled* by that process and the other existing
mechanisms for stakeholder cooperation.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:+SIWGvS4rftPFAIn@internetpolicyagency.com"
type="cite"> The IGF has never been about producing a deliverable
(an outcome), so is surely not suited, nor intended, to fulfil the
role of the process mentioned in paragraph 70. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Whilst I don't accept that, in any case there is nothing to say that
the IGF could not host a more substantive EC mechanism, in lieu of
creating a new UN body such as the CIRP to do so, or hosting it at
the ITU.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="color:black">Dr
Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer</span></b><br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black">Consumers
International</span><br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:gray">Kuala Lumpur Office for
Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</span></p>
<!--<p><span style="font-size:8.0pt;color:darkred"><b>Consumers in the Information Society</b></span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#999999"> Register now at <a href="http://A2Knetwork.org/infosoc2012">A2Knetwork.org/infosoc2012</a></p>-->
<p><span style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#999999">Follow <a
href="http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int">@ConsumersInt</a><!-- and <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/search/wcrd2012">#WCRD2012</a>--></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#999999">Like us at <a
href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:8.0pt;color:#999999">Read our <a
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank"> email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.</span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>