[governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus

[Avri Doria]

On 9 Jun 2009, at 08:45, William Drake wrote:

> Finally, as has been discussed here before, one should not get hung  
> up on the "respective roles" clause in the definition ...


As one of those who has been hung up on this ever since the words were  
first written down, i disagree.

i think this is a problematic phrase, especially when one looks at the  
list the roles and responsibilities lists that were created in WGIG.

It is a way for governments to try to keep civil society, the private  
sector and the internet technical community in their respective  
places, for they can always claim that we are moving beyond our roles  
and responsibilities.

true we can claim that governments have no real role and  
responsibility in the Internet, except the consumer protection of  
their citizens, but governments and IGOs will not readily accept that  
(and probably not most of ciil society either).

i believe it is a pernicious phrase and one i believe that civil  
society is better off not championing.

a.

ps. not currently under contract to any government or IGO
____________________________________________________________
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