[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[William Drake]

Hi,

There's not a lot of point in going around and around on this anymore, since
it seems clear we can't agree a joint position statement (best of luck to
our future coordinators ;-).  But just for my own understanding of what
people are saying, could this be explained please:

> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>

> Vittorio, I would agree with that approach. What I object to is to read
> a statement that sounds as if we are appealing to some higher authority.

> From: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>

> This is not WSIS, this is not an intervention into an intergovernmental
> negotiation, and therefore the "appeal to authority" aspect is
> misplaced. I think we need a far more positive and constructive sense of

I don't get the "appealing to authority" interpretation anymore than I did
the "protesting" interpretation.  The statement simply says 1) we think the
IGF should follow its mandate,  annual conferences alone can't achieve that,
so we would welcome an opportunity for open dialogue on how it can be done;
2) the AG and conference should be open and transparent; and 3) the IGF
should facilitate the formation of dynamic blah blah blahs.  In what sense
are these positions groveling appeals to authority?  Which passages do this?
I see them as flat statements of preference.

Thanks,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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