[governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments?

[Lee W McKnight]

I agree with re-starting para by para, beginning with Ian's comments.
________________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 3:15 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 2.0: any further comments?

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
<isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Oliver,
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Jeremy,
>>
>> Le 15/01/2010 17:46, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>
>> Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of
>> the IGF
>>
>> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts, which
>> reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from civil
>> society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender representation.  We
>> look forward to continuing to constructively engage with and participate in
>> the IGF over the course of its renewed term.
>> About the IGC
>> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are actively
>> engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the lead up to the
>> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our mission is to promote
>> global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. It
>> now comprises more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who
>> have subscribed to its Charter.  More about our coalition can be found at
>> http://www.igcaucus.org.
>>
>> Thank you for writing this statement but I am really sorry - I *strongly*
>> object to the statement as it is currently phrased.
>>
>> Okay - I'm not sure whether I am "allowed" to be saying this, but whilst I
>> think that your writing style and ability is impeccable, and whilst I agree
>> with some of the points developed, I also need to point out that the
>> statements which make up this submission are seriously misleading about the
>> amount of support this statement has behind it.
>>
>
> I agree with you on this observation.


As do I.

In addition, our charter says: "The IGC will use its mailing list -
governance at lists.cpsr.org, as the priority working space.
Work shall also be done with the website : www.igcaucus.org"

I do recall the questions were posted to the list.  I don't recall
anyone saying "what a good idea, go ahead with that".  Perhaps I
missed some mails over the holidays.

There does seem to be consensus to go para by para.  I think that our
submission will not be ignored even if late.

--
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
____________________________________________________________
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