[governance] Forum text

[Izumi AIZU]

I also support Bill's suggestion.

I do appreciate Vittorio's work, and see some points
I agree with, but given the limited remaining time, I think
we should stay within pragmatic and agreeable solution.

I think the debate will not end anyway anytime soon,
especially on Forum, and we can still visit more issues
as we proceed.

izumi


At 09:18 05/11/10 +0100, you wrote:
>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"キ (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

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