[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Lee McKnight]

Jeanette,

I was agreeing with you until you objected to CS groveling for
resources, which ah, is what CS always does....especially since the
responsible authority, the new sec gen, does have some say in resource
allocation, and he claims multi-stakeholder interaction is a priority. 


Whether the statement is going anywhere or not, CS folks should be
expressing concern about resource issues to those reponsible authorities
even if no quick fix is available.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 10/26/2006 12:12 PM >>>


William Drake wrote:
> 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.  

Hi Bill, lets imagine you would talk to your giganet colleagues and you

wanted to convince them of something, would you then write for example

"resources should be allocated to support this objective"? No, you 
wouldn't write that since you know there is nobody in Giganet who 
allocates any recourses. This is meant as a mere illustration of my
point.
jeanette


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 
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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