[governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today

[Drake William]

Hi John

On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:25 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Drake William wrote:
> 
>> The government representatives were all on topic.  With a few exceptions, the nongovernmental representatives were typically off topic, long self indulgent speeches about their own activities, views on the state of the world, etc.  It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the superiority and necessity of a multistakeholder process.  Reminiscent of some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores that Geneva is a better setting for us than NYC.
>> 
>> Hopefully the Brazil-India-South Africa text proposing a strictly intergovernmental group will be posted somewhere….
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Bill
> 
> Bill - 
> 
>  Did you feel that the NRO or ISOC comments were off-topic?
> 
> /John
> 
> (who spoke on behalf of the NRO)

Uh, kinda awkward on a list…but I guess I asked for it.  No, I thought you were more on point than most.  Your first statement about governments and numbers groups being increasingly active in each others' spaces illustrated the "EC is already happening on a distributed basis" premise.  On the other hand, they're not necessarily denying that.  They're saying a) it's not enough, so governments also need an isolated space free from pesky stakeholders in which they can more comfortably talk about unidentified problems that can only be addressed properly by unidentified principles of their sole making; b) the TA mandates this, so it must be done; c) it's the natural order of things, since the UN has an IGO for other every other issue-area like energy, transport, etc, so why not Internet; and so on…Your second intervention asking how a government-only process fits with the TA spoke to b).   But it would have been more effective if you'd directed it to one of the government proponents; asking the chair to explain was an invitation for it to be waved off on grounds of neutrality.  I think you had a third comment too but I didn't take notes, maybe was multitasking.  Didn't hear ISOC's.  Anyway, I'd have liked to have heard some probing questioning of premise a), although it probably wouldn't have mattered, the alignments weren't going to change based on oratory and reasoning.  Just would have been nice to have collectively put up a better front so the situation was more plain and open to challenge later on...

2 cents,

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

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