[governance] First Draft of Statement on US CommerceDepartment/GAC chair intervention

[Danny Butt]

Outside of the reservations on technical grounds made by Adam, Bill,  
Avri et. al on the list, which I agree with, there is also the  
question of strategy. It seems to me that the potential benefits of  
releasing Milton's statement as CS are small compared to the risks of  
negatively affecting the perception of CS among key stakeholders  
where bridges need to be maintained (some non Euro-American  
governments springing to mind). From my POV, the potential downside  
is far greater than the upside w.r.t. CS' future involvement in  
whatever new processes emerge.

Best.

Danny


On 20/08/2005, at 3:41 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Personally, at this point, I cannot subscribe to a statement that
> complains of a process violation i do not see as having happened.  I
> possibly could subscribe to a statement that counters arguments based
> on content restriction, whether that is censorship, meta-censorship,
> or something else entirely is a philosophical debate i would love to
> get into over a beer  - censorship is however a loaded term that
> should be used carefully and with lots of backup information - i am
> not sure we are there yet.

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