[governance] Forum text (was Re: suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65)

[Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)]

comment below

On 11/7/05, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
> Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto:
> > No, the sooner we get the text in the sooner people will read it. It's
> > also a slight different type of contribution, more procedural in that
> > govt. have to agree to opening text before they will consider what we
> > have to say in substance.
>
> I'm not sure I get this difference, however I take your point on
> submitting text as soon as possible. So could you please submit the text
> on the forum as well? We've been discussing it for three weeks and all
> objections have been accommodated, so I think we can consider that
> adopted too.
> --


Vittorio, I don't think there is consensus that the text you suggested is OK

I for one don't think it's OK to go.  As has been said, we made
comments after the WGIG report, they were submitted after long long
discussions on the list, and I would expect those and the comments we
made during prepcom 3 to be the starting point for new texts.  But
you've based your statement of WGIG, and I don't get why we go back in
time.

A lot of what you have is in the text we submitted in our reply to
WGIG, but, for example, we suggest a quite different set of functions.
 An d you missed a section that many found important about the forum
not negotiating hard instruments, etc.  Basically, I think the feeling
is that it is not a place for negotiation.

The forum needs a way to get started, but I didn't see support for an
executive or steering committee. Perhaps it's just words rather than
function, because I agree there needs to be that function.

Anyway, it's not for me to decide. If everyone happy with the forum
text we'll submit. Personally, I'm don't agree with it.

I think we've got ourselves into a hole by trying to emulate what the
governments are trying to do and write text we think could drop in to
the chapter.   I think we'd be better off writing about ideas and
principles.

Some of us will be going to Tunis, and in sub-committee A sessions we
will be given opportunities to speak (I hope!)  We will be asked to
react on specific issues.  And this I why I have asked quite a few
times for comments on the text we used during the last prepcom.  We
need to know as broadly as possible what ideas are acceptable and what
are not. None of us in Tunis will want to make things up as we go
along (really :-), the point is to try and base what we say on ideas
this mailing list has agreed to. If there are ideas you want
considered you have to state them. And please read the texts we read
during the last prepcom.

Thanks,

Adam



> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


--
Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please
reply to  <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!

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