[governance] Possible CS text on forum

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

I agree with Bill.

As we're trying to develop text for the resumed session of prepcom 3,
I think we would be better starting from the text we used in the
recently ended prepcom 3. We spoke four times on the forum during that
prepcom.  I sent the files to the list a week or so ago, and they are
online

<http://www.net-gov.org/files/pc3_drake_1909.pdf>
<http://www.net-gov.org/files/pc3_peake_2709.pdf>
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/sca/APC-29.doc>
<http://www.net-gov.org/files/pc3_doria_3009.pdf>

Vittorio, I like what you're trying to do, but could we try to build
from some text we've had some agreement about before.  By all means
add stuff ... not trying to censor you :-)

Thanks,

Adam



On 10/24/05, William Drake <wdrake at cpsr.org> wrote:
> Hi v,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
>
> > I think that we have a fundamental difference of views here. You and
> > Jeanette seem to think that this forum would only produce meetings and
> > reports, and thus no formalized decision making procedure is necessary.
> > I, Bill and Adam (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to think that, as there
> > will be the need for some meaningful decisions to be taken, a
> > coordinating group is likely to be established in any case and so we'd
> > better have some proposals ready for it.
>
> No, I do not think the starting point should be to devise a mechanism that
> will have as its default mandate the taking of 'meaningful decisions.'  I
> have always argued for a configuration wherein in the special circumstance
> that there is agreement among all parties on some pressing matter that
> merits it, nonbinding recommendations, declarations, and the like could be
> advanced.  That's different from framing this as the routine activity with
> all institutional mechanisms shaped by that approach.  This will not be
> acceptable to the OECD governments, anyway.
>
> > I also think that the absence of clear decision making procedures would
> > lead to an "emasculated" forum (to use Bill's term) that would be unable
> > to have an impact, and while this is an outcome that perhaps would
> > please the USG and the private sector, I think it would be a disaster
> > for us. We need a place where to start raising on a global scale issues
> > such as privacy protection and freedom of expression.
>
> I am not sure how far into the precise details of the decision making
> procedures we need to go at this stage, and tend to think that trying to
> drive the conversation in that direction will open up more disagreements
> amongst us than not.  The important point is to make it absolutely clear
> that any procedures devised by an eventual UN drafting group be inclusive.
>
> >
> > "4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all
> > stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and
> > make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It
> > should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat AND HAVE
> > TRANSPARENT, INCLUSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCEDURES TO
> > ADOPT ITS OUTCOMES. ANY EXECUTIVE OR STEERING GROUP (IF NECESSARY)
> > SHOULD BE COMPOSED BY MEMBERS FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS, WHO [deleted: and
> > coordinated by a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members] would
> > serve as peers in individual capacity. [deleted: Overlap or duplication
> > with existing institutions should be avoided and the best possible use
> > should be made of research and work carried out by others.]"
>
> It's becoming hard to keep track of this process.  I know you want to move
> it along and appreciate that, but I'd like to see your text next to the
> caucus' agreed text so we can all understand what the differences are.  I
> would generally prefer that we start from the caucus' agreed text and that
> the process of evolving it be multilateral (among us), right now it seems
> not to be so much.
>
> I'm going to have limited net access in the coming days but will try to
> catch up.  I hope someone can post the working text(s) on a website for
> comment and evaluation.
>
> BTW, per a side conversation with Adam Jeanette and Karen, we might try to
> devise some language about the construction of the scholarly/CS supporting
> research network.  There's some risk that the governments are already
> developing ideas of what this should look like, and it shouldn't come from
> them, but rather from us.
>
> Must go,
>
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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