[governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review

[Parminder]

William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Parminder wrote:
>
>> Bill
>>
>> Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles  have considerably 
>> changed subsequent to my email
>
> Yes, I wrote a paper two years ago because of an email you wrote two 
> hours ago.  Rather prescient, no?  ;-)
I havent read your paper but know that you have consistently spoken of 
and advocated on this list and outside  WSIS principles as only 
'multilateral, transparent, democratic and multistakeholder' and nothing 
else ever. This is matter of record in IGC archives and the same is true 
of the (IGC statement) text you proposed to Ginger in reply to question 
3 on WSIS principles objecting to the present draft highlighting the 
rights issues in response to this question as grossly mis-informed.

> It is? I thought self-selection means one selects oneself to something.
That was wrong English on my part. i mean selectivity or selective 
interpretation. thanks for correcting.

>
> On the substantive/development side, the principles are arguably less 
> systematic and coherent, an artifact of the negotiation process and 
> phrases particular governments wanted in. 
I cannot at all see how any of the following four principles ""should 
ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all 
and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into 
account multilingualism" are less systematic and coherent than 
"'multilateral, transparent, democratic and multistakeholder".  I find 
them perfectly clear and coherent. In fact we have earlier agreed that 
democratic (in international sense) and multistakeholder are very 
unclear terms. So the choice of one set of principles in ones advocacy 
over other is basically political, isnt it.

> But one can argue that taken together they reflect a normative stance 
> that IG should promote development, even if there's no agreement on 
> exactly what that means or how it could be achieved. 
Thats a bit dismissive. Isnt everything here a normative stance. Is it 
any more clear how multilateral, democratic, transparent and 
multistakeholder principles can be achieved.

>>
>> Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy 
>> here, and am spending time on this because I consider it an important 
>> discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end with text 
>> to the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just not respectful.
>
> I suggested that if we disagree, let's agree to disagree.   This 
> widely used and understood phrase does not mean "do not reply" or have 
> anything to do with respect or its absence.  And in fact, we are 
> actually agreeing, at least in part; stop the presses, no? :-)
You know that is not the part I replied to. i replied to the part on 
your advise for us not to subject the list any further to bilateral 
soliloquies. Making an argument and at its end to say 'lets now stop it' 
is what is not done, and is disrespectful. parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/2eae4f0c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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