[governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE)

[Riaz K Tayob]

This is not persuasive reasoning for me. Because UN or other processes 
are blocked the Steward Government should not be written to?

I am not sure if this a procedural (as in the above q?) or a more 
substantive point. Can you clarify please?


On 2013/05/28 07:04 PM, William Drake wrote:
> On May 28, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 28 May 2013, at 12:19, Riaz Tayob wrote:
>>>> I do beleive, as I have said elsewhere, that DOC would just as soon
>>>> hand the responsibilities over.  Just not to another governments or
>>>> to a intergovernmental institution.
>>> To whom, then? And when? I have proposed earlier that IGC writes to
>>> the US gov (it is not DOC, it is the US gov) that they forgo their
>>> oversight role to an international body.... We can always propose
>>> some such body, say, a technical board, with 10 members, 2 each from
>>> each geo-political/ geographic, region, elected from selected top
>>> technical academic institutions by rotation from each country in the
>>> region... any other suggestion is welcome... Elections from ALAC ?,
>>> something else? But we much act on what we believe or say.... Non
>>> action is simply another form of politics .
>>>
>>> My proposal here is serious, and I propose that we as IGC begin work
>>> on it. What better timing then the forthcoming meeting of the WG on
>>> enhanced cooperation.
>> Would it be a reasonable first step to write to the US Government with
>> a request to communicate their perspective on a potential handover, in
>> particular in regard to what kind of institution (or rotation of
>> institutions) the role might reasonably be handed over to?
>
> Under your able baton, the caucus is currently unable to organize a meeting during an IGF consultation, unable to provide a written input to the consultation or the MAG meeting, unable to provide an input the WTPF, unable to provide a letter to the chair of the WGEC on meeting openness (luckily he's willing to try without the support), unable to do any of the things it used to do that garnered broad support from the diverse membership, consistent with our purpose in starting this in Feb. 2003.  But you would like to write to the US government and demand that it explain itself to you and Parminder?  Seriously?
>
> No, this would not be reasonable.
>
> Bill
>
>


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