[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Parminder]

>
>> 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.

By 'technical aspect' i meant that those who have not favored JPA's 
immediate termination  have not done so because they per se like the  
JPA  to continue  but because they want other arrangements to be 
finalised before JPA  is terminated.  However, in substance,  everyone  
does want JPA  to  be  terminated. I just want that fact to come out 
strongly enough for it to be taken notice of. Thats all.

However, i have already expressed agreement for the text as it stand now.

Parminder


>
>
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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