Before doing that, could we be reminded of the purpose of this draft definition? And how will it be used?<div><br></div><div>And clearly the text is still very fluid. </div><div><br></div><div>Lets just continue discussion until we know what we are doing and why. Calls for consensus give a dread feeling of a WCIT'ish call for temperature<span></span> of the room. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Adam</div><div><br></div><div><br><br>On Friday, April 26, 2013, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
<div><div>BTW, instead of one individual asserting what he or she will or won't allow the Caucus to do, why don't we put forward the contentious statement (some version of it, whatever) for a consensus call (or some other relevant procedure of the kind) as to whether it is worth pursuing --as I believe parminder suggested? To that end, the initiators should clearly remind us of the main purpose and both should feature in the call. If that gets defeated then the Caucus drops it and move forward.<br>
<br></div>My 2 cents.<br></div>mawaki<br></div><div><br><br><div>On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mawaki Chango <span dir="ltr"><<a>kichango@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>+1<br></div><br>I am far from being among the least fortunate among my fellow Africans and other people from the developing world. Yet, I am right now sitting in a cybercafe somewhere in West Africa, and this is my first internet session since my last post to IGC list yesterday -- because I don't have the luxury of a high speed internet connection at home or wherever I stay in this city -- and I have already spent 1 hour mostly reading this list posts (and not all of them). <br>
<br></div>Under conditions like those and conditions like these, you say you want people around the world, for most of whom English is a foreign language --at least for those few who can read and write it -- to participate in these processes? You better get out of your bubble, folks!<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br></font></span></div><span><font color="#888888">Mawaki<br></font></span></div><div><div><div><br><br><div>On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrea Glorioso <span dir="ltr"><<a>andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear Milton, dear all,<br><div><br></div><div>I am not entirely clear whether it is appropriate for me to enter in this debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of the Internet Governance Caucus but I simply read / try to participate to the discussions taking place on this list. So, if this message is not appropriate, please disregard it. <br>
<br>For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing a personal position here.<br><br></div><div>I read with great interest the exchanges on the notion of "public good", "commons" etc. Milton's substantive arguments are in my view rather correct, as it often (but not always :) happens, at least to the extent that they warn against under-emphasising the importance of private-sector initiative and consumers' choices in the past, current and future development of the Internet. <br>
<br>However, I do find the way in which such arguments have been expressed rather troubling. To focus on one single example: it might well depend on cultural sensitivities (which are a reality in a global environment and although they should not result in self-censorship, they should at least produce more self-awareness) but I do find a sentence such as "be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent [the statement being discussed] as a civil society position" rather threatening.<br>
<br></div><div>Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this or that? Having the fortune to know you a little bit, I can imagine you refer to a (very :) vigorous use of your right to freedom of expression (which, by the way, is not an unbounded right). However, others who don't know you might interpret the sentence rather differently. In Italy (or at least, among the Italians I grew up with) telling someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that does carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe people in other parts of the world might also have similar interpretations of this kind of expression.<br>
<br>(I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point).<br>
<br></div><div>Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are trying to suppress discussion, at least for a definition of "discussion" which might not be Milton's or others' preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps that of several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep tones as polite as possible. <br>
<br></div><div>I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I <u>very deeply </u>respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways to express yourself.<br>
<br>Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be important </div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>