[governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

[Avri Doria]

Ah, the wrath that descends on one who disagrees.  Like music to my ear


On 13 Feb 2013, at 12:04, parminder wrote:

> Now you do not want it implemented. 


false, I do not wish it to be imposed from outside the IGF on the IGF.

I want the IGF to review and then implement as per the IGFs viewpoint.

As far as I am concerned the job of the UN and its various organs is to initiate the IGF, not rule it.


> Here you are subverting 

I am suggesting a different perspective.  Sorry times when a different perspective in the IGC is subversion.

I have long argued that NN is an overloaded term in which we all talk past each other.

Is it now a litmus test we use to call people not progressive enough?  

> But why oppose the 'Meaningful participaiton of all stakeholders in IG' theme..

Because I think we should be rather reviewing organization in terms of the Multistakeholder modalities, not once again saying Multistakeholder good.

Also because terms like Meaningful appear meaningless to me.

avri






-------------- 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