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

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder

> Bill
>
> I have no issues with your Malta presentation - it is a personal thing, and
> of course can legitimately have one angle stressed more than others - as
> presentations in specific contexts need to do.....
>
> My reference to glaring omission is just regarding the proposed IG caucus
> submission to the crucial IGF meeting.... and the general 'acceptance'
> building around it.....

Some text was cut and paste in for possible inclusion and further development,
there was no general acceptance or under the table agendas, it was a initial
text dump.

We have given up on writing a caucus statement or intervening as the caucus.

> >> I say again, you think that the forum should address
> public policy issues for critical resources.  Fine, I'm ok with that.  Let's
> see if others agree.  If they don't, ok, views in the caucus are diverse,
> and
> the challenge then is collegial persuasion.>>>
>
> Yes, this is important. I would like to know who all do not agree that
> public policy issues for critical resources should not be discussed in the
> IGF. Just to know people's views that all.... because that is a bit
> surprising for me that there are people here who believe so. I am very eager
> to hear their logic for it.

We discussed this in the caucus meeting and Milton just made an intervention
(reflecting just the views of us here, not labeled as a caucus statement)
saying no issue should be taken off the table, everything should be open to
transparent multistakeholder discussion, including public policy principles.

Best,

BD


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