[governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards

[Norbert Bollow]

Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> "The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC support this petition. "
> 
> Dont understand what it means.... to me it means all participants in
> IGC support, which means IGC supports......

Good catch. For full accuracy, IGC statements should say something
like "IGC supports...", not "The participants in the IGC support...".

It is possible for a statement to reach consensus even if not all IGC
members support it: Some might be indifferent and neither support nor
object. Also "IGC participants" is not a sufficiently precisely defined
notion.

> to me either (1)
> IGC is supporting something or (2) a set of individuals/ orgs are
> supporting something with no reference to IGC

+1

IGC may set up some kind of forum for advocacy that can be used to
develop statements and solicit signatures for statements that don't
reach IGC consensus or rough consensus, but I agree that such
statements that are not IGC statements should not mention the IGC. 

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept

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