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

[Milton Mueller]

Hello, Parminder.  

>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 2/17/2006 5:51 AM >>>
>First of all, I must clarify that IGF is clearly mandated as a public policy
>discussion space (along with research, presenting policy options etc) and no

[snip] 

>Two, it is being argued that that IGF should take up only such issues that
>are not at present dealt with other organizations. (despite the operational
>para 72 interpreting IGF function much more widely).  

[snip]
>But now CS seems to be strategically pulling back from full
>commitment to para 72.

I don't know what you are talking about. I and Bill Drake have been leading the charge against any narrowing of the IGF's activities. Our comments were considered so provokative that EU people went around sounding out other CS people as to whether they agreed with us. (As far as I know, everyone here does.) The Australian delegate went out of his way today to counter our comments.  

I understand that it is hard to keep up with a process you are not attending and that all the emails flying about are hard to keep up with, but the fact is that you're just wrong in your assertions and you need to face that fact and back down. 

We have enough real battles going on here. We don't need to fight phantom ones. 
 



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