[governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...)

[Lee W McKnight]

Norbert,

So far so good, you got a yes from me too.

Since noone else can make sense of enhanced cooperation, we might as well give it a go.

I won't belabor the points re US domestic regulatory proceedings and their - relative degree of openness; and the coincidence that it is global big business that pays greatest attention.  For a process at the global level, or processes that cross levels, of course different requirements come into play. But my point remains that when a resource-allocation process is underway, having some standard of 'fair and open' by which that process can be measured. Then folks unhappy with the results - I agree with you analysis of the Bulgarian case in point - have recourse.

Anyway, you got an ID to write, so don't want to distract you.

best,

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:32 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...)

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> To those supporting this, what does strong government participation mean?
>
> - Participate as equals in a multistakeholder group?
> - Be a majority in such a group?
> - Have a voice that is more equal than the other voices?

My current idea is to aim for about 1/3 of the persons on
the working group to be governmental delegates.

I would suggest that every working group member would
participate as an individual and with equal weight in
determinations of rough consensus. But of course, the
weight that is given by the group to any particular view
will depend on the perceived expertise of the speaker
with regard to the topic under consideration. For example
when participating in such a group, when the topic under
discussion is how the views and needs of poor people in
developing countries can be appropriately taken in
consideration in ECTF, I will, in the determination of when
I would hum (or however the group chooses to measure rough
consensus) want to give greater weight to the views of anyone
who has grown up in such conditions than e.g. to the views of
a Western industrialist. When the topic under discussion is
how to structure ECTF processes in order to avoid making
participation unreasonably difficult or frustrating for people
with non-technical public administration background, I will
want to give greater weight to what the government
representatives say than to what e.g. engineers say who have
never worked in a government context.

I would expect the other working group participants to
similarly apply common sense in weighing viewpoints, so that
whatever rough consensus results, will be as reasonable a
recommendation on the way forward as what can possibly be
achieved.

Greetings,
Norbert


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t