SV: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation

[Kleinwächter, Wolfgang]

Here is the US Statement from September 16, 2008:
 
We recall that the establishment of the IGF was one of the key outputs of WSIS where world leaders
asked the U.N. Secretary-General in an open and inclusive process to convene this new multistakeholder policy dialogue as well as to report to the U.N. member states periodically.  We reiterate our commitment to the results of WSIS. The promise of the IGF, which is an open and inclusive dialogue among all
stakeholders of the international Internet community, to discuss critical issues concerning the future of the Internet is viewed by the United States as a positive development. The United States continues to believe that the IGF should be a truly multistakeholder event. Therefore, it is important that processes and
procedures be as transparent as possible. The United States again thanks the IGF Secretariat and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group for continuing to facilitate this dialogue and for coordinating the program, agenda and format in Hyderabad in December 2008. We also would like to endorse the comments made by ISOC on the program agenda in August 2008. We anticipate that we will offer additional views on other appropriate occasions regarding the program, agenda, and forum of the third meeting.
 
Two Points, in my eyes, are worth to notice:
1. USG supports a periodical reporting by the UN SG to the UN member states on IG issues. 
2. USG sees the discussions of "critical issues concerning the future of the Internet" by the IGF as a "positive development".   
This sounds different from some langue we heard in 2005 by some member of the US congress. 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sendt: to 18-09-2008 23:06
Til: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Emne: RE: [governance] My blog on the Tuesday consultation



I wrote a blog that was already quite long. I did not "ignore" specific contributions, just didn't mention them, along with about 30 others.

Anyway, the Russians and Chinese came out in favor of debate and open discussion of controversial issues.

There are ironies here, admittedly.

One could ask why governments that suppress dissent at home are eager to allow it in an international forum, just as one can ask why communities that enjoy robust debate internally try to suppress it externally.

But the answers are pretty obvious, for those of us who see these exchanges as based on strategic pursuit of their own interests.

I don't know why you mention the US intervention my recollection is that there was nothing interesting about it (as usual) but perhaps I missed something.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>
> I am surprised that Milton in his blog did ignore the statements of  the
> governments of China, Russia and US. Interesting interventions and worth
> to read in the transcripts.
> wolfgang
>


____________________________________________________________
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