[governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs

[Roland Perry]

In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3 Dec 
2010, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>  In message <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 16:36:38 on
>  Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes
>    Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary
>>    jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops
>>    on this at the last few IGFs.
>    Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the
>>    past anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them.
>>    It?s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country
>>    of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting
>>    organisation could all get involved in legal action against a
>>    site that offends the nation state of any of these.
>    The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the
>>    adoption of some universal principles IMHO.
 >>
>>  Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or
>  several of the OECD's initiatives are all about.
>  But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I
>  can see.
>Dear Roland,
>
>At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my
>approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it
>again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives.
>Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and
>global democracy count for anything?

That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong with 
the initiatives. That's pragmatism rather than paternalism. We are where 
we are, and if those initiatives will solve the problem - why is their 
parentage such an issue?

>On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why
>should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all
>countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here'
>remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it.

I'm "against" needless duplication, but also "for" the greater 
participation of all, in the development of future initiatives. That's 
what I do - work hard to bring new people into existing places so they 
can make their views known. And when there's a genuine vacuum, try to 
form something new to address that issue.

>This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for
>consultations on enhanced cooperation.
>Thanks
>Parminder

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t