[governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

I agree with Jeanettes observation that the EU Proposal risks to open the door for a too detailed and heavy governmental cloud over the day-to-day operations. While 64 (introduction) limits the activities to "the level of principles", the following subpoints a. to e. are an invitation to leave this level downwards. 
 
If you remember the .eu nighmare you sould be warned about the practical consequences of such an approach. If a. to e. is a bargaining chip, it is fine. Question remains, is the critical mass which is grouping behind 64, big enough to move US and China?
 
Wolfgang
 
   

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann
Gesendet: Do 29.09.2005 10:59
An: Vittorio Bertola
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A



Hi, we might have another opportunity to speak in the next subcommittee
meeting tonight.
My suggestion would be to have a look at the contributions from
Argentina and the EU on para 62. These contributions seem to be regarded
the most relevant ones. What do others think, should we comment on these
proposals?

http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt14rev2.doc

I had brief chat with an experienced participant this morning. He
expressed his surprise about the EU proposal. Considering the fact that
the EU tries to express the middle ground, their proposal is too
detailed, too government-centred ("too french") and obviously not
coordinated with US. "As the Austrians would say, the US did not even
ignore the EU proposal."

The latest compilation of comments on the chair's paper still has the
first version of our statement on para 62. This is very unfortunate. We
completed our new version yesterday evening because we wanted to get it
included in the new compilation as distributed this morning.

jeanette



Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Rumours are that Khan might let delegations comment the different
> proposals for section 5 (i.e. forum + oversight), then adjourn the session
> and reconvene it as a drafting group on section 5, chaired by himself. If
> this happens, we will be confronted with the option of sitting silently,
> or trying to speak and possibly be sent out.
>
> In any case, Jeanette is making our statement right now, so we've spoken;
> but, in light of the possibilities that these WSIS rules of procedure are
> adopted also for the forum, I am wondering whether we should not set
> continued precedents of exclusion, so to continue raising the issue until
> we get better treatment, or confront them with the risk of civil society
> (and perhaps private sector) not supporting the forum due to its
> dissatisfaction with actual possibilities for participation. I do not want
> to take excessive action, but this needs some careful strategic thinking
> in the near future.
>
> Getting back to Khan, another rumour is that he might come up with his own
> attempt to merge existing proposals into a common text to start
> discussions.
_______________________________________________
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