[governance] bureau

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Adam Peake wrote:
>> With respect Adam, I'm not sure that that's fair.  The consultations 
>> have not been dialogues, they have in general been a succession of 
>> monologues, in which participants read out (for the most part) 
>> pre-prepared statements, without the opportunity for open discussion, 
>> and in response to which the Secretariat and Advisory Group
> 
> there was no advisory group at that time.  Chicken egg etc.  So don't 
> blame MAG for something it could not have been involved with.

I referred above to consultations, which includes the subsequent ones 
for which the Advisory Group was around.

> A consultation was held on modalities.  People contributed and there was 
> discussion.  Someone had to decided what the consensus of that meeting 
> was so things could move forward.  Or we would still be discussion 
> modalities now and there would not have been a meeting in Athens...  
> This isn't a Ph.D. that might get finished one day.

Yeah thanks, ouch.

> It's arranging an 
> very large semi-governmental, international conference.

Oh, is that what the IGF is?  Silly me for going by what the Tunis 
Agenda said that it was; a multi-stakeholder forum with a specific set 
of objectives in its mandate, of which "discussion" is only one (well, two).

> Would be nice if you could pop into the real world occasionally.

There is no need to be patronising.  The fact is that the Advisory Group 
model is a failure, as a number of submissions (including ours) have 
said, and is probably being discussed in the room you sit right now (I 
can't tell; neither the ITU RealPlayer Webcast nor the VLC one are 
working for me as you know).

As Jeanette has just acknowledged in her response to me that the 
Advisory Group doesn't even attempt to make decisions on a 
multi-stakeholder basis, but simply engages in irresolute discussion and 
cedes the power of decision making to Nitin Desai and Marcus Kummer (er, 
I mean, the Secretary-General), is the need for reform not obvious?

So whether the details of his proposal are wise or not, explain to me 
again why it is so silly for Louis to revisit other alternatives to this 
failed institution now?  I'd have thought now, before the old Advisory 
Group has been reconvened, is the perfect opportunity.

-- 
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