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

[Parminder]

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote:
>
>> Since you have in any case opened the field I think it will be best 
>> to redo the statement a bit, without adding anything controversial. 
>> Getting a good statement may be a more important imperative. And we 
>> do still have time. We have closed statements later than this previously.
>>
>> I suggest - you remove the part on 'innovative contributions' reg 
>> MAG, since there was always enough controversy regarding it for it 
>> not to be there in first place....
>
> Like others, I cannot fathom how this suggests support for the 
> disbandment of the MAG. 
Because that is the spirit and background in which those who suggested 
that sentence made it, and that is the context in which the issue will 
be on the table at the open consultations (not disbanding, which is an 
extreme term, but experimenting towards doing with less or none of MAG, 
which is the way it was described). and also significantly, in the 
discussion I, and  I understand  at least one more person,  were 
opposing this  stream of logic... So it should not have gone into the 
statement in the first place. (Only two people were arguing for it.) 

And if your explanation is that this is a harmless general statement, 
that no one can object to, why you did not as well pick some 'harmless' 
sentence form my numerous emails - that no one can object to - somethign 
like 'we should seek to strengthen rather than weaken the capacity of 
the IGF and the MAG system towards purposeful activity'

which in the context of the present issue on the table would get read 
as, we are not for doing away with post Feb MAG meetings....

Parminder


> For now I am going to leave the consensus call open.  Once it closes 
> Ginger and I can post any final suggested changes to the list for 
> comment to see if anyone objects.
>
>> and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF 
>> Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands....
>
> Others have pointed out that these belong in a separate statement, and 
> I agree.  I don't think we need to draft a long, formal statement and 
> make a consensus call on it, since we already have a long-standing 
> consensus to promote these themes.  But let's start a separate thread.
>
> -- 
>
> *Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *CI is 50*
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement 
> in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect 
> consumer rights around the world. 
> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100129/83bc3286/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