AW: [governance] Consensus Call for CSTD IGF Questionnaire -

[parminder]

On Friday 19 November 2010 06:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:45 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>> What I cant understand is the position of those who both oppose the 
>> EC process (in whichever evolutionary form) as well as oppose 
>> possibilities of the IGF making recommendations (I see Wolfgang, 
>> Katitza, Bill, Jeanette among others state that position). Moreover, 
>> they all seem to closely associate with OECD/ CoE policy making 
>> processes, which are in fact much less open, transparent, 
>> multistakeholder etc than even the 'enhanced cooperation' model 
>> which, for instance, I proposed and they strongly resisted. 
>
> Interesting.  But I have never said I oppose enhanced cooperation.


Enhanced cooperation as per the TA is a new process (to be commenced by 
the SG) and its express objective discussed in many parts of TA is to 
develop public policy and public policy principles.

Now I quote your email from when the IGC was discussing EC

"I'd argue for a MS observatory process convened under the auspices of 
the IGF, consistent with all the relevant mandate elements." (Bill)

Now apart from the fact that anyone can call anything as EC, and say, 
see, I dont oppose EC, can you explain how such a MS observatory be 
called EC in any sense in which TA used that term. And how can a MS 
observatory develop Internet related public policies (as TA wanted the 
EC process to do). This is especially so when  you oppose 
recommendations by the IGF.



>  I have said I prefer recommendations from the IGF to recs of the IGF, 
> which will not work.

I dont understand the difference. Can you pl explain. How are recs from 
the IGF any different from the numerous recs, or whatever, any number of 
workshops etc are already free to give and may be giving. Or how is 
these 'recs from the IGF' different from the present chair's summary... 
What is that you really propose as a possible improvement in the IGF.  
It is  a good time to explain it because we are discussing IGF 
improvements.
>  I am not closely associated with the OECD.
But you do associate.
>  I don't think it makes sense to advocate a Global Internet Council 
> until someone can convincingly explain why it is needed, how it would 
> operate,

Sure, ready for a discussion on it. And also ready to arrive at 
different names, forms for the possible global mechanism of Internet 
related public policy making. But it is difficult to do a debate with 
nothing really coming form the other side as an alternative which can 
address the pressing need to fill in the global vacuum in the area of 
Internet related gloal public policies. Whether there is at all any such 
vacuum, and if so where, there is a rather easy way to find that out. 
Just look at all the inter-country Internet policy related work being 
done by CoE/ OECD etc. And you may also want to see CoE's global 
aspirations stated in Wolfgang's email

Parminder
> and why it would not end up being like what the caucus rejected during 
> the WGIG period.
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
>> Yes from me too...let's see if we can reach a 'rough consensus' 
>> amongst ourselves at least.
>
> I don't know who the selves in question are, but this needs to follow 
> the procedures for consensus calls we agreed in the charter.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101119/e798fa6e/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