<html>
<body>
At 02:52 07/08/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Some of this just doesn't
compute. </blockquote><br>
Dear Suresh,<br><br>
I am afraid it DOES compute (emphasis as per the IUTF practice where DOES
and DOES not add to IETF MUST, MUST NOT, etc. to protect against
strata/layers violations). The whole architectonic issue we face
(Global Treaty, RFC 6852, Digital Soverignty, Cyberwarfare, US
Internationalization, etc.) is here. The computation language we are used
to is not powerfull enough for the kind of dynamic complexity we are now
involved in. We are "no more" in a 3D stable (one single
reference frame for all) or even relative space (no reference frame for
all), but in a generalized 4D space-time were (one reference frame for
each).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The agenda was shaped by
consensus achieved by a rather diverse spectrum of organizations, not all
of which have been known to move in lockstep with each
other.</blockquote><br>
Yes. The keyword here is "was". The difficulty is in safely
moving ahead (in present and future) without changing the agreed tack.
This has a name: precaution duty. We never agreed upon a rigid statement,
we actually illustrated an ethic towards an aesthetic (a beautiful
Information Society is "people centered"). Our problem is that
you, Jeremy, each people, me do not proceed at the same innovation speed
and direction. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In a shared decision making
environment, hostility and a divisive agenda - not to mention a
"they are all against me" complex like I see expressed below
aren't exactly the best drivers for any kind of consensus building.
</blockquote><br>
I am afraid we are not realy in a "shared" decision making
environment, but in a multi-consensual individual decision taking
context. What is wrong with "shared" is the "-ed".
Jeremy has his own vision of the innovative move. I do not know this
vision in detail, but I know that "move" opposes to
"status-quo" and that there is a diversity of possible and
legitimate moves (actually one per "mover") downplayed by the
wide majority of "status-quotters" for the simple reason of
different momentum aggregates.<br><br>
All this has a name: real life. <br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">--srs (iPad)<br><br>
On 06-Aug-2013, at 17:22, Jeremy Malcolm
<<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On 05/08/2013, at 2:02 AM,
George Sadowsky
<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">
<george.sadowsky@gmail.com></a> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I note your sentence below:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The just-a-conference group have
successfully "forced their view" on the others until now, by
vetoing changes necessary for the IGF to fulfil the rest of its
mandate.</blockquote><br>
Could you clarify (a) what the rest of the IGF's mandate is, and
specifically where it is defined, (b) exactly who are members of what you
call the just-a-conference group is, (c) what the veto mechanism is and
how it has been use, and (d) based upon the previous responses, how
responsibility should be distributed for what you appear to characterize
as failure?</blockquote><br>
It seems like I've been over this many times before, and I'm actually
curious why you are asking these questions since you surely know the
answers. So I'll keep it brief.<br><br>
(a) As you know, the rest of the IGF's mandate is in paragraph 72 of the
Tunis Agenda, and amongst the paragraphs of the mandate that it is widely
agreed have not been fulfilled (citations available, but I promised
brevity) are the finalisation of recommendations (mandate paragraph
72(g)), interfacing with intergovernmental and other international
organisations at an executive level (paragraph 72(c)) and assessing the
embodiment of the WSIS principles in other Internet governance
institutions (paragraph 72(i)). <br><br>
(b) Mainly ISOC (and other technical community), the ICC (and other
private sector) and the USA (and other OECD countries).<br><br>
(c) From the very first questionnaire on the formation of the IGF, the
agenda was shaped to exclude certain formats and procedures from
consideration, with the object of denying the IGF the organisational
capacity to meet the above paragraphs of its mandate. Aided by poor
transparency of the MAG and a heavily top-down Secretariat, structural
inertia very quickly set in so that further changes to the IGF suddenly
became "impossible"; even those minor improvements
independently recommended by the CSTD. The MAG is large, with an
over-representation of technical community representatives, and is
chaired by one of their own, with the result that it continues to be an
effective instrument of the status quo. IGF critics are generally
kept out of the inner circle - whilst I'm nobody important, I've never
been selected for the MAG nor for any main session. This could just
be coincidence, though it came to my attention recently that ISOC had
specifically vetoed my nomination to speak at a regional Internet
governance meeting, and Michael Gurstein, as you know, has been treated
similarly. Moreover it wasn't beneath one individual to spread a
false rumour that destroyed one of the dynamic coalitions that had been
advocating for progressive changes to the IGF.<br><br>
(d) See (b) and (c) above.<br><br>
-- <br><br>
<b>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers</b><br>
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<br><br>
Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub
|<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone">
http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a><br>
<br>
@Consumers_Int |
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">
www.consumersinternational.org</a> |
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" eudora="autourl">
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a><br><br>
Read our
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality">
email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print this email unless
necessary.<br><br>
</blockquote>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<br><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>