[governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

sometimes tweets are reflective.
and sometime we object to what we see in the mirror.

avri

On 02-May-14 08:30, Adam Peake wrote:
> Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays
> discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions
> during the meeting. Good luck today.
> 
> About your last point, tweets.  The meeting is transcribed, we can
> see who is saying what.  How is tweeting a problem?  Perhaps clarify
> with the chair.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> It was a long day.  We finally made it through all of the proposed 
>> recommendations that group members had offered.  We are at least
>> half a day or more behind our schedule for the meeting.
>> 
>> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report.  While
>> the report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point
>> of fundamental disagreement:
>> 
>> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document
>> 
>> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand,
>> now lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to
>> fill the gaps.
>> 
>> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed
>> and needs further discussion.
>> 
>> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes,
>> especially the scope of Enhanced Cooperation:
>> 
>> - among governments
>> 
>> - among all stakeholders.
>> 
>> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include 
>> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and
>> women's participation in the Internet governance as part of
>> Enhanced Cooperation.  The fundamental group-division fed into the
>> discussion:
>> 
>> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing
>> the real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between
>> governments and a new body wherein those discussions can be held
>> 
>> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all
>> stakeholders.
>> 
>> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion
>> went on as long as it did.  I am sure this discussion will
>> resurface at some point in day 3.
>> 
>> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced 
>> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including
>> these models in the document.  This discussion continued the second
>> day with some some arguing:
>> 
>> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus
>> on, and there seem to be some such points
>> 
>> - we should discuss the various oppositional models.
>> 
>> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only 
>> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would 
>> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of
>> the points they had just accepted.
>> 
>> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would
>> have"
>> 
>> - a chair's report
>> 
>> - a WG group
>> 
>> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and
>> is likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2.
>> 
>> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is 
>> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's
>> discussions
>> 
>> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments
>> have begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these
>> oppositional problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder
>> discussion. There is every chance that a final oppositional
>> impression is being set up:
>> 
>> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs
>> more a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve
>> 
>> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure
>> 
>> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers
>> of the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this
>> discussion.
>> 
>> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for
>> using twitter to say things that offended some WG members.  To me,
>> this showed how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis
>> Agenda driven discussions are in todays' world.
>> 
>> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression
>> and free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions
>> that underlay our discussions.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these
>> lists can correct or amplify this quick report. 
>> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt><DRAFTfinal
>> report-140501>____________________________________________________________
>>
>> 
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 

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