[governance] intervention draft - why are the more progressive elements of IGF functions ommitted

[Danny Butt]

I support the essence of Parminder's comments - with respect for the  
work people are doing I think it's not true that it "reflects a  
collective process of thinking" in a meaningful way, because there  
are very different levels of involvement and investment in the process.

This is the "governance of CS caucus" issue that we discussed last  
year (and reached no agreement on from memory). Until there is  
progress on this the status quo will remain, and the perception from  
some that this suits a particular group with a shared history and a  
relatively shared culture and assumptions will also remain.

The decision to move forward on more drafting, consensus-building,  
and interventions without having addressed the process issues is a  
clear message: the concerns raised by Guru, Laina, and others last  
year are secondary to this group's activity.

The downplaying of our governance unfortunately echoes the failure of  
some of our other internet governance institutions ("we're doing the  
best we can", "we are open to any contributions"), and over the long  
term leaves the group vulnerable to some of the critiques we are  
making of others. The proverb about keeping one's own house in order  
applies. As mentioned last year I am happy to participate  
constructively in activities and discussions designed to address the  
issue, as I know many others would be. I'm getting tired of questions  
along this line being painted as counter-productive to more urgent  
"matters at hand", perhaps this discussion can be continued post-Geneva.

Regards

Danny


On 16/02/2006, at 5:54 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:


>
> The point I want to make is that this statement reflects a collective
> process of thinking. I havn't invented anything, I merely merged
> elements of recent contributions.
>
> Also, most of what you suspect further down in your email is simply  
> not
> true or does not reflect my intensions. For example, I don't mean to
> give complete acceptance to any existing arrangements.
>
> I would appreciate if you could comment on other people's work on this
> list in more polite and respectful way.
>
> jeanette
>
> Parminder wrote:
>>
>>





-- 
Danny Butt
db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net
Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com
Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand
Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200


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