[governance] Simple and basic questions

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Let me be clearer.

Stakeholders in the same room works to enhance cooperation for much more
attainable and real world goals that get discussed in the IGF. Access,
Freedom of Expression, etc. I personally found several very useful contacts
in my little corner of the world (multistakeholder cooperation to mitigate
spam, bots and other online threats), who I wouldn't have found in the same
room at several other events.

What won't work is trying to run a coup on ICANN from outside, say.

As for your calling me spiteful, that's entirely a case of the pot calling
the kettle black.  You are at impunity to say Lee McKnight (say) shouldn't
be running anything in the Carribbean that doesn't involve you, and to
insinuate various other things (such as that Veni is an IGP).  Merely paying
you back in the very same coin you spend so freely on this list and in real
life.

Call it a disrespectful interface to an uncivil society (with due apologies
to Ms.Misek Falkoff for abusing that term)

I'll look forward to pointing out in great detail the flaws of whatever
"panel" you put together at the IGF. Hyderabad is only an hour away by air
from where I live, so that should be easier for me than traveling to Rio.

	srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:09 AM
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: Guru
> Subject: RE: [governance] Simple and basic questions
> 
> 
> Suresh,
> OK, we're making some progress. On this question:
> 
> > >Do you think the UN IG Forum has an important and legitimate role in
> > >internet governance, and if so, what is it?
> 
> I can surmise that you believe the answer is yes, because you said that
> it is good to get all stakeholders in the same room, and the IGF does
> that. That's good to know; welcome aboard.
> 
> You do not advance a very clear concept of how and why getting
> stakeholders in the same room accomplishes anything, but you do assert
> that its use as a discussion forum leading to new forms of governance
> or
> "soft" oversight "just might not work". But your choice of words also
> implies that it just _might_ work. This is a perfectly legitimate
> difference of opinion, and we should be able to have rational
> discussions of it.
> 
> I still don't know the answer to these questions:
> 
> > >Are you a member of IGC? I.e., have you signed the charter?
> 
> A simple yes or no would suffice here.
> 
> I can understand why you might want to dodge that one, but if the
> answer
> is no, your constant personal sniping at a few active participants and
> your generally negative tone toward our activities are cast in a new
> light. It suggests that your bombardment of IGC participants with many
> messages is not done to build but rather to harass and obstruct, or
> perhaps out of personal spite. Imagine, for example, a diehard atheist
> who insisted on participating in a forum for discussion, advocacy,
> action, and representation for devout Christians (or the reverse). What
> is the point?
> 
> Here is another question you did not answer:
> 
> > >Is your participation in caucus discussion intended to strengthen
> our
> > >ability to build a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for
> > >representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance
> > >processes?
> 
> Again, a simple yes or no would suffice.


____________________________________________________________
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