[governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks

[McTim]

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> In my personal capacity, I have the same concerns that Mc Tim mentioned
> here. IGC is moving an agenda where there
> is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing. As I mentioned,
> since this is quite a short time, and we do not have yet
> a position on this issue, I can't endorse that statement.
>
> Katitza and McTim
>
> One, IGC's statement clearly asks for any future structure to involve CS.
> That is a big part of our main enhanced cooperation statement. Wikileaks
> parts just highlights the kind of basic substantive issues involved here.
> So, how do you judge that we are 'moving an agenda where there  is no
> certainty about our involvement in equal footing'.

From what happened at WSIS (many examples of being kicked out of
rooms) and what CSTD did last week.

>
> Second, OECD/CoE initiatives do not have anything close to involvement of CS
> on an equal footing.

I didn't mention either OECD or CoE, so I don't know why you brought them up.

> If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a "framework"
> of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors in its
> development, would you all still be in favor of said framework
> building?

Will you answer the above query?

-- 
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