AW: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond

[Parminder]

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 29/01/2010, at 6:14 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
>   
>> Wolfgang is right, it's a process not an institution.
>>
>> So does that make the options
>>
>> YES + thematic working groups + process?
>> YES
>> NO
>>     
>
> No, it means these points should have been made earlier. :-P
>   
Jeremy, I have only suggested points that have been made earlier in the 
present process , except for the NN theme.

There have been earlier IGC statements that NN should be taken up as an 
issue at the IGF, including as a main theme. But if you prefer you can 
take a separate vote on this specific issue, which I agree was not 
mentioned earlier in the present process. But if you at all accept our 
request to do some changes to the statement, why not wait 2 days or so 
for comments also on the 'NN or open Internet' theme as one of the main 
IGF themes, before we close it. Parminder


> I don't mean to be flippant or disrespectful to you or Wolfgang, but there is an underlying serious point which is that we have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm drawing the line at YES + thematic working groups, YES, and NO.  Sorry. :-)
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100129/959fe84c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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