[governance] communicating with our peers
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Feb 7 07:38:22 EST 2008
>>In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is
>>that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the
>>CS members in the MAG.
>Is not correct.
>>At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy
>>to be proved wrong.
>I don't know that as a young boy you did not
>torture kittens. I would be very happy to be
>proved wrong. (whatever, just stop this negative
>silliness please.)
Adam,
This is a part of a series of emails in which you and Jeannette claimed that
you have been reporting most of MAG occurrences and not much has been
happening there. This gives me good reason to believe that if CS members
would have been doing something on opening up MAGs deliberation to the
outside world, you would have reported something on that. Isnt it logical to
think so.
Added to it is the fact that when numerous times the topic of MAG's lack of
transparency was discussed on this list either there was no participation of
CS MAG members (and this would have been an excellent opportunity to give
details about CS MAG members activity on this issue within MAG, if one would
have missed doing it otherwise) or the comments were not too much pro more
opening up.
>Please coordinate some input for the consultation
>that's a couple of weeks away. Deadline for any
>comments being included in the synthesis paper
>missed (again), but never mind
I am trying to, to my best ability. But as you would have noticed the list
is not sufficiently alive to the issue. I did start separate email threads
for both MAG renewal (paraphrasing the involved issues as well) and comments
on Rio and suggestions for Delhi.
BTW, IT for Change did make a contribution to the MAG renewal issue. See
http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0 . So it is not that I in
my personal capacity am not engaged with the issue. But this and Jeremy's
and the latest one from Afonso are the only IGC member contribution (and
there is the earlier email from Jeanette, and from Ian Peter), and I will be
happy to abstract a text from these to put for seeking consensus. But I
think that the set of viewpoints and the breadth of discussion may not be
enough for me to do this. But if you think if shd be done I can. You may
also add your viewpoints here.
Parminder
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:41 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Subject: RE: [governance] communicating with our peers
> >This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there
>>before and I missed it):
>
>>"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are
>>available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how
>>this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it
>>is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006.
>
>
>No, it wasnt there before. And it's a great development.
>
>In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is
>that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the
>CS members in the MAG.
Is not correct.
>At least I do not know of it, and will be very happy
>to be proved wrong.
I don't know that as a young boy you did not
torture kittens. I would be very happy to be
proved wrong. (whatever, just stop this negative
silliness please.)
>It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions.
It's been a bit of an evolutionary process. We
began with expectations from WSIS and WGIG etc,
and progressed since then. A lot of people want
more openness (and fairness, and for the MAG to
be functional as a multistakeholder group.)
Please coordinate some input for the consultation
that's a couple of weeks away. Deadline for any
comments being included in the synthesis paper
missed (again), but never mind.
Thanks,
Adam
>And we are so
>keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't the
>CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In fact,
>I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China,
>wanted these meetings to be open to observers. And CS doesn't seem to have
>any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would
>amount to less transparency.
>
>Parminder
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
>Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers
>
>This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there
>before and I missed it):
>
>"Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are
>available on the Forum Section on a regular basis." I like it how
>this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it
>is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006.
>
>Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that
>were posted last month are intended as the first of a series. This is
>good, except for the fact that most of the critical decisions on the
>IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much
>more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the
>MAG's veiled world two years ago.
>
>--
>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
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
More information about the Governance
mailing list