[governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal

[William Drake]

Karen,

If the opportunity arises, I would like to see us speak to both by simply
reaffirming what the caucus has already agreed on:

1. The forum should have a mandate to focus on the functions we have
listed, not just ICT4D;
2. The forum should be able to address any and all multidimensional
issues, and not have its scope artificially limited at the outset by
marking off huge chunks of terrain that are "being handled elsewhere."

This language is being read out now on the PrepCom floor as the possible
basis of consensus.

The intention of the restrictive formulation is very clear, I can't
understand how anyone could miss it.  The US and business want to restrict
the forum's focus as narrowly as possible and ensure that the brilliant
work being done in other bodies not be reconsidered from an independent IG
standpoint.  NTIA told me the other day the don't want interconnection
costs in the forum, they prefer to keep it in the ITU, where bone-headed
PTOs have proposed accounting and settlements type solutions to which they
can easily and rightfully say no.  Similarly, they will say that anything
with an IPR dimension is off the table.  We experienced this dynamic in
WGIG, where Vittorio's efforts to discuss IPR were nixed.  And my efforts
to push trade dimensions. And so on.  I can already hear Dick Beaird at
the first Forum meeting saying the agreed language on the forum says no
duplication so we can't talk about this, we can't talk about that.


The WGIG report said the forum should be a place where anyone can bring up
any issue.  I think that's the right formulation at this stage, and that
its thrust was entailed in our previously agreed language.  So I hope we
don't just roll with efforts to emasculate the forum before it starts.

Bill



> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:04 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal
>
>
> hi
>
> - do we need to speak to the canadian forum proposal? (which is weak, but
> at least references a few principles and working methods we like) - or is
> it now supercded by the 'western' proposal
>
> - or, is it implied to form a complementary part of the 'middle ground'
> proposal
>
> karen
>

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