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

[Adam Peake]

>Il giorno mer, 09-11-2005 alle 02:42 +0900, Adam Peake
>(ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto:
>>  Vittorio, I don't think there is consensus that the text you suggested is OK
>
>How do you tell that there is no consensus on the text on which I've
>been leading the drafting effort, but there is consensus on the text you
>wrote and proposed for your own favourite edits?


You mean the request to reopen the chair's text and to address the 
two paragraphs?

Because both were statements read during prepcom 3, both were agreed 
during prepcom 3. The definition/roles of civil society was objected 
to as soon as it appeared on the Geneva documents almost 2 years ago. 
We raised it during WGIG discussions. I asked on the list a few 
times.  Not enough?

The piece about terrorism was from another caucus and it is our role 
to try and ensure that agreed text from other caucuses gets 
recognized. We have spent many hours trying to coordinate in this way.


>  > 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.
>
>May I ask why didn't you post these substantive objections while we were
>discussing the text, like, for example, Avri did? I think we could have
>easily accommodated them.


How many times did I send email to the list asking people to look at 
the prepcom 3 statements and use them as the basis on which to build 
new comments, 3? More? I mentioned the same thing to you in offlist 
email.

I have no idea why you went back to text that was not from the caucus.

Thanks,

Adam



>  > 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.
>
>Fine, I will move this discussion to a separate thread so that it can
>get more attention.
>--
>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