[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision]

[McTim]

On 10/26/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
> McTim,
>
It
> is dealing, per the IGF's original conception and mandate, with the whole
> heterogeneous landscape of IG mechanisms and issues, including the
> intergovernmental realm, and saying that there is no one body within that
> landscape that performs the following functions with respect to IG AS A
> WHOLE:
>

nor should there be IMHO.

>
> Which of the groups you imagine you are defending from attack is
> facilitating discourse and information exchange on PUBLIC POLICIES between
> the full constellation of intergovernmental and private bodies involved in
> IG? Which is serving as an interface between intergovernmental organizations
> on matters under THEIR purview?  Which is promoting and assessing, on an
> ongoing basis, whether the full range of intergovernmental and private
> bodies involved in IG undertakes decision making in a manner that is
> transparent, accountable, inclusive, and development-oriented?

ummm,... all of them

>
> None of them.  They're doing other things, per their respective mandates and
> constituent interests, and the statement is not saying they don't do those
> things well.  It's operating at the systemic level,  not the level of
> individual organizations or networks.  That's the IGF's unique mandate,

IIRC, the mandate is to do capacity building.

and
> the statement merely endorse the mandate and says fine, let's implement it.
> The sentence, "These are all critically important, value-adding functions
> that cannot be performed by any other Internet governance mechanism" needs
> to be read in that specific context.  If you misunderstand the IGF's
> mandate, then you'll misunderstand an endorsement of it.  If it would make
> you feel better, we could specify further, "These are all critically
> important, value-adding functions that cannot be performed for the Internet
> governance arena as a whole by any one existing organization."  On the other
> hand, if as you frequently seem to indicate, you think the IGF is just
> useless BS in the first place,

I've never said that, I just think it's a jolly for y'all.

If all the cash that was spent on it was spent on real capacity
buillding in the developing world, instead of talking about capacity
building, we'd be better off.

>
> So would you like us to make the sentence above allude more clearly to the
> mandate, or would you simply like the caucus to not endorse the mandate?

As I think it's extraneous, I suggest deleting the whole sentence.

As other have raised issues with more than one sentence, it looks like
a moot point.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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