[governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

[Izumi AIZU]

I also support Bill's suggestion to delete number of year.
It is too early to judge and not quite discussed until
just very recently.

At 11:12 05/08/15 +0200, William Drake wrote:
> >
> > 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 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.

I also agree.


>All fine by me.  Would be good to hear from more people...

I have not much more to add. Thanks Karen, Adam and
all those contributed and quietly supported, from the
early process we tried to make our statement, back in
April, May, June and July...

Considering our diverse views and positions, the latest document
achieved very good "consensus" within relatively short period of time.

Let's keep this spirit and further exercised at the PrepCom3.

izumi

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