[governance] Forum text

Thu Nov 10 03:18:51 EST 2005

Bills approach has my support

wolfgang 

BTW, in the opening session of the Bilbao city summit, where I am at the moment, with 10 high level speakers (including ITU-Utsumi and UNICTTF-Sarbuland Khan) only two speakers refered to Internet Governance: Mr. Soupizat from the EU, representing EU Commissioner Vivien Reding, explained that the "new cooperation moedel" proposed by the EU does not propose to change the existing structures and mechanisms but would add a layer to the system. And Mr. Morilla, Minister for Industry of Spain. He informed about a debate in the Spanish parliament and a motion that the majority supports such a "new cooperation model". With other words, what you can expect is that the EU will go its way and will ignore what Mr. Coleman is arguing. 

BTW, did you notice that the EU language "new cooperation model" is very similar to the language, Ira Magaziner introduced in 1997 to block the IAHC gTLD-MoU. Magaziner introduced the terminology "new cooperation"· (NewCo) whichn later became ICANN. 

Best

wolfgang

________________________________

From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of William Drake
Sent: Wed 11/9/2005 10:36 PM
To: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Forum text

Hi,

Agree with Adam and per previous, strongly believe that we should use the
language that was previously agreed as a group rather than the more recent
substitute provided by Vittorio.  Appreciate the intention of the effort,
but think the caucus statement is better and has the virtue of buy-in.  I
can't see the benefit of trying to reinvent the wheel now, with just a
couple days left we'd likely end up with nothing. This is especially so
because the list has been largely preoccupied with oversight, on which
little agreement is likely (amongst us, or amongst governments), rather
than the forum, which has actually been agreed (amongst us, and amongst
governments).  That's agreement in principle, the tthing has to be shaped
properly, and governments specifically asked for our input. We could have
sent the caucus text to them weeks ago when they asked.  Could we do so
now, with just a few tweaks to make it into declaratory language?

Best,

BD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:42 AM
> To: Vittorio Bertola
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Forum text (was Re: suggested changes to chairs
> paper,paras 45 and 65)
>
>
> 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

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

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