[governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact Paid for by??

[Eric Dierker]

I missed something again.  This questionaire was written by whom?
 
Clearly AT&T paid for this questionaire.  So who did they pay?
 
One thing is obvious.  We do not so much need a "who are you that I am talking to"  we need a "who is paying you to talk to me".

--- On Tue, 9/15/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IRP] Please provide your input on the impact
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 8:12 AM


Michael and Jeremy,
Thanks very much for your comments. This is a dilemma we faced in formulating the questionnaire. 

I invite you all to make your comments of this or any other kind on the survey in the last 3 open-ended questions.

Your suggestions and additional comments are very valuable, and we will take them into account. We appreciate your time in making any observations or additional points.

Thanks very much to everyone who participates in the survey!

Best,
Ginger

Jeremy Malcolm wrote: 
On 15/09/2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: 


Rather the significance of the IGF should be seen in terms of how it has directly and indirectly contributed to the creation of a basis for concensus, a language for discussion, a (suitable) cadre of informed people to carry on the discussion (it is here where I have my issues with the current IGF but I won't go into those further at this point), the provision of a venue for the undertaking of the discussions and so on and so on.  None of this is particularly "national" (in fact little of it is likely to be national which is the point I think of transnational agencies) and little of it is likely to be visible as concrete "impacts" (or even outputs--which is what is currently being discussed in the form of possible IGF "recommendations" etc.). 

I mostly agree.  In my view the questions were too focussed on the extent to which the IGF successfully facilitates discussion and produces understanding on discrete policy issues such as freedom of expression, access to knowledge, etc, and omits to consider higher-level meta-discussion of Internet governance arrangements. 


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090915/24a155e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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