[governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss 
> it – at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF.
> 
> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased 
> enough so that we can better make an issue of it.
> 
> Instead of using “alternate wording” on the vain hope that 
> authoritarians can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse 
> on individual rights, 


This is not about tricking someone into participation.

use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that
> everyone knows what is happening when the MAG vetoes it.

it is also not about scandalizing something that is well-known anyway to 
  all who have attended the open consultations or have read the 
transcripts. There is nothing new here and nothing we havn't known for 
years.

The question is whether we want to be right on rights or if we want to 
create the conditions that would allow us to address them in a main 
session.
jeanette
> 
>  
> 
> --MM
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
> *Cc:* William Drake; McTim; Parminder
> *Subject:* [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)
> 
>  
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main 
> session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as 
> Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps 
> more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot 
> think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as 
> 'legal provisions' would work? "
> 
> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. 
> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope 
> we can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting 
> at Les Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other 
> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to 
> address IRP.
> 
> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to 
> consider:
> 
> legal provisions (Jeanette)
> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance
> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance
> Internet governance and the position of individuals
> Internet governance and individuals
> 
> gp
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> William Drake wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote:
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was
> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't
> find a definition of it in any of them.
> 
> 
> McTim, Parminder, you are both right.  R&P is a broad and
> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the
> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support
> here.  The latter trumps the former,
> 
> 
> Why? Majority trumps reason?
> 
> so it should be included in the
> 
> statement.
> 
> 
> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main 
> session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as 
> Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps 
> more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot 
> think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as 
> 'legal provisions' would work?
> 
> jeanette
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> To be 
> removed from the list, send any
> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
> <mailto: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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
> <mailto: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
> 
____________________________________________________________
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