[governance] APC - Forum draft?

[Ian Peter]

There's an old saying, "a camel is a horse designed by a committee".

In other words, when you get to the level of detail we are at now,
committees and caucuses don't function well. Particularly if tight deadlines
are imposed.

Governments are having the same problems, I think.

Step up a level. There is a lot of agreement here on principles, main
problems, main directions. I could list the things where there is total
agreement and there are many, but they aren't the detail. 

I would be looking towards an expert group, a framework convention, a
smaller representative body, a  post-Tunis forum to recommend on the detail.

For the next few days, I would stick to the principles and the overall
direction on which there is a lot of previous agreement, and look to add
support to the mechanisms to move forward.

And I would be looking to react to the proposals coming from the decision
makers who hold power in UN (eg governments) and seeking to reinforce their
best efforts and bringing them to reality, rather than bringing forward left
of field last minute brilliant ideas that have no time to be discussed or
considered in the next few days.

Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of 
> Vittorio Bertola
> Sent: Friday, 11 November 2005 6:09 PM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann
> Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] APC - Forum draft?
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
> > What a great idea, Wolfgang. What do you think Adam and 
> others tried 
> > to initiate over the past weeks? The sad truth is that this 
> list seems 
> > to turn into an assembly of veto actors. I wouldn't be able 
> to say if 
> > there is anything we agree on at the moment.
> 
> Well, I tried to do exactly that, with my list of agreement 
> and disagreements. Apparently, it didn't work out. And 
> speaking in general, some people feel like they've been doing 
> all reasonable steps to create consensus and they've been 
> stopped by some destructive opposition, while the opponents 
> feel they're being regularly ignored and this is why they 
> have to oppose.
> 
> I think that what we desperately lack is an objective 
> procedure to measure consensus, and, once it's measured, 
> ruthlessly proceed. Food for thoughts for our Caucus meeting...
> 
> I'm specifically concerned by the fact that we all seem to 
> agree on 95% of the substance for what regards the Forum, and 
> yet we can't manage to come up with a consensus document. I'm 
> not sure whether we can do anything in that regard.
> -- 
> 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
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release 
> Date: 5/11/2005
>  
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 5/11/2005
 

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