[governance] JPA - final draft for comments

[Ian Peter]

Before I am accused of being misleading with my comments in the previous
message -

I should make clear that Bill Drake is, to my knowledge, supportive of the
bracketed text as it stands. His comments related to suggested changes to
the text that would indicate more of us oppose the JPA extension than
support it. I certainly don't mean to imply in my message that Bill (or
Milton) have indicated opposition to inclusion of the bracketed text. They
are both more than capable of stating their own opinions on this!

Ian Peter




On 5/06/09 8:54 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Folks, I am about to post under a separate heading a new draft of this
> 
> But firstly I want to acknowledge the driving will to reach a consensus here
> which has been evident in so many postings. That is good news and bides well
> for our future. Lets also realise how difficult this subject is.
> 
> But I note that many people, as well as myself having read the comments
> received, remain uncomfortable about the additional text I proposed
> yesterday. So before going to a draft let me comment on why I personally
> think it should be left out.
> 
> Firstly, as we are divided on JPA continuation, I am a little uncomfortable
> about including text relating to this. Others clearly are as well, wanting
> to change the balance with phrases such as "most of us" and "some of us"
> etc. Bill rightly points out how counterproductive it would be to try and
> present minority and majority opinions here. So to proceed with an area of
> text that makes few people happy and is actually weakening our stance  just
> for the sake of consensus does not appeal to me greatly. Milton makes this
> point strongly.
> 
> I also have some problems with the text
> 
>>>  Irrespective of when the JPA actually ends however, the IGC believes that
>>> it
>>>  should be replaced by a new global, multistakeholder accountability
>>>  framework, the development of which should commence as soon as possible, in
> an open, transparent and inclusive
>>>  process
> 
> Firstly, "replacement" tends to suggest external oversight, which we don't
> all agree with. Secondly "new" suggests the current model should be
> abandoned, rather than strengthened or built on. "development of a new
> model" has similar connotations. So I am going to personally suggest this
> text be left out.
> 
> So to test the wind here - under separate heading I will present a draft
> with the additional later text bracketed, and call for either "yes with
> bracketed text" or "yes without bracketed text". That will allow us to
> decide which version to put up for the final call (something we need to do
> within 24 hours) 
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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