[governance] IGF Improvement

[McTim]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Jeremy and Adam, and all.
>
> It's so bad that the rumor sound like very much true.


If in fact true, I hope it slows down our headong, pell mell rush to
ask governments to take over so many IG issues.


>
> But, I may argue (for the sake of making clear consensus based
> on wide consideration) or ask - is the non-participation, boycotting
> the process really the best option now?
>
> Not participate to which process? Working Group only, to  which in any case
> if they exclude CS members we cannot participate.
> Or coming consultation process as a whole including on IGF and on EC?

That's where we protest IMO.

>
> To me, rather, we need to raise our strong voice, joint letter with perhaps
> many more organizations than ICC and ISOC, and continue to "lobby",
> attend meetings, as observer then request for speaking slots etc,
> with clear reservation that we do not approve this approach.

I just don't see why we go, tin cup in hand like beggars asking to be
part of their process, when we don't engage in actual IG processes (as
a Caucus) that are already open to our participation.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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