[governance] Contribution to IGF consultation (was Re: Where...)
Mawaki Chango
ki_chango at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 7 19:12:09 EDT 2007
Great point, Jeremy! and I subscribe to the non-diplomatic
reiteration of what you said. Unless there's some feedback from
the Secretariat and both its staff and nonstaff, our only
contribution should be: why bother? what happened to the inputs
to the previous so-called consultations? People have better
things to do than talk, talk, and talk, to cover the void and
for the self-satisfaction of some people that they are doing
something, and of some other feeling they are part of something.
Mawaki
--- Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:
> Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto:
> >> So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation?
> >
> > Hear hear on xxx. But on the IGF Consultation, really, what
> is there to
> > say?
>
> I'd subscribe a diplomatical rephrasing of what Jeremy said -
> actually,
> given the present state of affairs, it seems to me that that
> is the only
> additional thing that we could say at an IGF consultation,
> apart from
> what we already said in February. If the subject of the
> consultation is
> "agenda and program for Rio", everyone already addressed that
> in
> February, so - as we discussed here with Jeanette a couple of
> weeks ago
> - one would expect something new to comment upon. Otherwise,
> I'm tempted
> to make a two-line contribution saying that yes, whatever we
> said in
> February, we really meant it. Or resubmit the February
> contribution
> altogether.
>
> However, if I'm not wrong, there will be a paper by the
> Secretariat (did
> I get it well?) so when that comes out, if it contains
> anything new,
> then we might have something new to say.
>
> Seen from the outside, the entire IGF process seems stuck
> while waiting
> for someone in New York to reappoint the Chairman, Secretariat
> and AG. I
> don't know whether any useful message about the composition
> and internal
> workings of the AG was taken at the February consultation -
> more or less
> everyone was asking for more transparency and clear guidelines
> on how
> the AG is formed, what it does, and how it operates. Was there
> any
> discussion about that in the AG, or is it just waiting to be
> reappointed?
> --
> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu
> <--------
> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/
> <--------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list