[governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

[Adam Peake]

At 11:12 AM +0200 8/15/05, William Drake wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>
>Few replies interspersed.



Para 4. Ian.  Thanks.  Think about text and we can try to take it to 
the prepcom (if we get chance to comment there!)

Para 37.  Yes, best to cut reference to years.

Para 41. Persuades me, leave the list as is. Unless someone has other 
objections.

Para 46.  We agree, do others?

Thank you,

Adam




>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>  Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:31 AM
>>  To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; karenb at gn.apc.org
>>  Cc: Governance
>>  Subject: Re: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
>>
>>
>>  Bill thanks.
>>
>>  Pretty much agree with everything you've suggested. Please you seem
>>  to have found a solution to keeping netizen.  I was just about to
>>  send my own edit document that suggested deleting it!  But I'm OK
>>  with 29/30 as you combined them.
>>
>>  Only commenting on major changes, some minor edits in the document.
>>
>>  Para 4. I am Ok with the history comment to stay, but moved to the
>>  end of paragraph. Ambivalent.
>
>I don't understand what is being said and why it is relevant to the
>definition in particular.  Could you rewrite it to make whatever the point
>is clearer and link it to the definition?
>
>>  Something to keep in mind: we hope to have chance to make specific
>>  comments during prepcom. On some issues we can't agree detail on now,
>>  having a general place holder there is a good start. If we don't hear
>>  back with specific text on FOSS, para 26, this may be an example of
>>  something we can develop later in prepcom.
>
>Agree.  It will not be resolved quickly, so perhaps use Lee's streamlined
>approach for now, stick to what we agree on, and then discuss later?
>
>>  Para 10.  Agree with adding "either the WSIS or a future forum, if
>>  one is created."
>>
>>  Para 27.  Agree
>>
>>  Para 29 & 30. Agree
>>
>>  Para 37. Ian's comment on number of years the forum should be tried
>>  for - five is a very long time.  WGIG did a lot in 18 months. More
>>  than two and it looks  too permanent.
>
>Disagree on multiple levels, inter alia 1) I don't think it is up to CS to
>be setting a sunset date before there's even agreement to try, 2) 18
>months won't do a damn thing for developing countries, espeically least
>developed countries---it could take them that long to ramp up the capacity
>to participate at all (remember, we are not proposing this just for the
>benefit of globe trotting Northern NGOs), and 3)as the issues will not in
>fact be "resolved" in some short time frame, and new issues will
>continually emerge, I can't see the functional argument for predjudging
>the appropriate life span.  We called for it, now we're going to back
>peddle, join the ICC, and say we grudgingly agree only if it goes away
>quickly?  In the interest of sticking to points we agree on given the need
>to submit this, I would suggest deletion of any mention of years, which I
>didn't notice in going through the text previously.  We can debate this
>later if appears there may be intergovernmental agreement to go forward.
>
>>  Para 41.  Can someone read carefully for repetition. Also, we are
>>  stating that the forum should be "lite" does this long list of
>>  functions start moving us to a more activist and powerful group?
>
>I at least don't share this concern.  It would not in any event be
>powerful, and there's a lot of on which deeper analysis and interative
>dialogue could be useful.  This is an illustrative menu of possible
>choices to pick from, it doesn't mean that a forum would necessarily do
>all these things, much less build up a huge bureaucracy and try to do them
>all simultaneously.
>
>>  Para 46. "accept inputs from the proposed global forum structure"
>>  No, not one of the functions in the list in 41.  This it should be
>>  deleted.
>
>I agree.  Developing countries may overshoot and insist on the forum
>providing an alternative or at least complement to GAC, in which case the
>whole thing could go down in flames.  Leaving the politics aside, the real
>question is whether on functional grounds there is a sustainable case for
>building a tall wall between naming and numbering issues and the rest of
>the agenda.  Has not been discussed, anywhere.
>
>>  What is now para 48.  The editing away for north/south university
>>  partnerships is good. Thanks.  But I think "most notable through
>>  local university programs"  would be better as "for example through
>>  local university programs"
>>
>>  Edit Para 52 to read "We also agree with the WGIG and others that
>>  existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more
>>  solid democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.
>>
>>  Para 58.  I am happy to see it kept as is (Ian a lee's comments.)
>>
>>  Para 64 a.  Bill asked how would the USG make such a statement.
>>  Gallagher made the statement on June 30 which carried obvious
>>  authority, something similar by him or Amb. Gross.  MoU with the
>>  world one day! (no real opinion on that).
>>
>>  Para 64 c.  I'm OK with this.  Third item in the list might just be,
>>  "issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above."
>
>All fine by me.  Would be good to hear from more people...
>
>Best,
>
>Bill

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance