[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Parminder wrote:
>>  Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot,
>>  as a dialogue
>>  among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement.
>>  If someone
>>  wants to do a sign-on for this version, yours, or
>>  Parminder's, maybe we
>>  could pull that off, but I'm not sinking more time into this,
> 
> But the problem is that IGF is an (potentially) important institution 
> for IG, and some of these questions are crucial to be asked in the first 
> meeting. Otherwise its character will be cast… And if we do not ask 
> them, in all probability, nobody else is going to…
> 
> Can we so easily give up on this responsibility…

It does seem to me like a bit of a wasted opportunity, yes.  I'd have 
hoped we could have taken it that silence from any would-be dissenters 
meant consensus.  If we can't use Bill's draft in that way, then it 
seems to me we can only fall back to the model of a petition.

May I then, Parminder and Vittorio, publicise Vittorio's most recent 
draft of the version the three of us contributed to 
(http://igfwatch.org/petition) more widely in an attempt to gain support 
for a unified position from civil society, though not from the IGC? 
Please let me know within a few hours as I depart for Athens today.

PS. Also if you agree can you print it and some signature pages out
     and bring them to Athens?  Too late for me to do so.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance