[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Parminder,
>>
>> sorry, I meant to reply to the first of your two emails, particularly to:
>>
>> "though there isn't an absolute consensus, the predominant opinion is 
>> in favor of (immediate) ending the JPA" (I added 'immediate' to 
>> Shiva's language)
>>
>> represents the exchanges on this list much better.
>>
>> I got the impression that you want to polarize instead of advancing 
>> consensus. If I am wrong here, I apologize.
>>
>> In more general terms, we are moving in uncharted water here as 
>> Wolfgang likes to put it. None of can know for sure what the right 
>> strategy is under such circumstances. While we have similar goals, we 
>> are all guessing how to best get there. I hope that we take each other 
>> seriously so that we can respect when and where we come to different 
>> conclusions.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
> Jeanette, thanks for clarifying.
> 
> I thought your reservations on ending the JPA was only about the vacuum 
> it creates, 

That is correct, yes.

and therefore I proposed a seperate line to take care of
> that consideration. In fact I heard no one on the list object to ending 
> of JPA other than on the grounds of this 'technical aspect'. 

I am not sure why you categorize this as a 'technical aspect'. As I said 
at an earlier state in this debate, I don't think it is wise to 
privatize a task and then try afterwards to build a regulatory or 
accountability frame around it. We want to get rid of unilateral control 
and we want to replace it by something more international - some of us 
think of an intergovernmental framework, others prefer a 
multistakeholder arrangement. For me, this looks like an eminently 
political point, not a technical one.


However
> this does not come out clearly in the statement. So I thought it is best 
> to make it clear. I  may be wrong though on your reasons for seeking 
> extension of JPA, in which case I would like to hear about them.
> 
> As for 'no one knowing what the best way forward is' - the crucial 
> difference between political arena and say academic etc arenas is that 
> at crucial times one has to speak up - and paralysis of views and/or 
> action can be even more dangerous.

But we are striving towards a consensus position that, in my view, 
should take into account that different positions may reflect the 
openness of the situation (instead of merely ideological differences).

jeanette

  (Having different views is a
> different matter altogether though). Just my view.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
>> Parminder wrote:
>>> Jeanette
>>>
>>> The remark
>>>
>>> "I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'. "
>>>
>>> was only answering Lee's formulation and Carlos's agreement  to it. 
>>> See the emails below.
>>>
>>> When I say 'I would of course like it even better...' after giving 
>>> more definitive comments in the earlier email, it is clear that I am 
>>> not trying to queer the pitch as you suggest I am trying to do.
>>>
>>> As for expressing 'the views of more people than those speaking up 
>>> here' lets not even open up that debate here. BTW it Micheal's 
>>> Gurstien's pet theme :). You may want to see his emails.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> Parminder, we were so close to an agreement but now, for some 
>>>> reasons, you suggest to marginalize those who don't agree with your 
>>>> position.
>>>> I definitely disagree with your version.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I should remind you that only very few members participate 
>>>> in this discussion. The latest version presented by Ian is much more 
>>>> consensus oriented as it integrates the views of more people than 
>>>> those speaking up here.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>> I would of course like it even better if all of us can agree that 
>>>>> "JPA should end and a we agree on an MOU for a transition'.
>>>>>
>>>>> this language is even clearer and more powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Lee,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Seriously, in the next A or U there could be a mandate for
>>>>>>> participation in a transition process, with of course USG
>>>>>>> noncommittal to the conclusion of the transition process, until that
>>>>>>> end state is defined more precisely than it is today. Maybe that's
>>>>>>> what we advocate, end the JPA and agree on an MOU for a transition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lee
>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree this is a realistic prospect. It of course does not mean we
>>>>>> should not express our position (with the obvious educated guesses on
>>>>>> what our chances are) -- this is how political "negotiations" go...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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