[governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus

[William Drake]

Hi Avri

On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> 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.

Of course it is, which is why we argued against it in WGIG, and why a  
couple months ago, when IGC was considering a related workshop  
proposal, I argued against using and legitimizing the term.  We can't  
post hoc delete it from the UN recognized def, and should be on guard  
for any efforts to invoke it as justification for a purely  
intergovernmental construction of enhanced cooperation etc.  But in  
our own understanding of what IG is, there's no need get hung up on an  
empirically false wart inserted for political rather than conceptually  
principled reasons.  So the point I was making was folks shouldn't  
interpret this clause as meaning that IG is necessarily a negotiation  
between the three stakeholder groups 'in their respective roles' and  
hence conclude that the definition is overly restrictive and should be  
abandoned.

I guess I need to start parsing more carefully in order to anticipate  
every possible interpretation.

Thanks,

Bill

____________________________________________________________
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