[governance] Shah' stmt at the close of today

[Roland Perry]

In message <50C825B1-7A36-41DD-906C-5FFC8A7DF5A7 at graduateinstitute.ch>, 
at 11:02:27 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Drake William 
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> writes
>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.

The chair was looking for proposals on what to do - to get Enhanced 
CoOperation off the ground.

He wasn't very impressed by people who said "you've missed the point, 
IGF is working fine" or "everything's OK, nothing new needed".

Despite the popular view that "doing nothing" might indeed be the best 
option, the chair pointed out that he had a resolution in front of him 
saying that "something must be done". Which, in politics, often becomes 
"this is something - we must do it".

>It's hard to see how that helped make the case for the superiority and 
>necessity of a multistakeholder process.

And the rather shaky start to his consultation in Sharm, as well as the 
"poster incident", probably didn't endear the less formal IGF process to 
those more used to New York protocols.

>Reminiscent of some similar WSIS episodes, and arguably underscores 
>that Geneva is a better setting for us than NYC.

I did get the impression that many speakers were "our man in New York", 
whereas in Geneva we seem to see faces more familiar with the long term 
process. Again, with a few notable exceptions (in both directions, when 
the CSTD is involved).
-- 
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