[Mmwg] revised draft input

[William Drake]

Hi Milton,

Which changes in substance do you have problems with?  My suggestions on the
intro and paras 1-5 are all editorial, for language.  I guess you could say
my para 6 is substance, but it was really just saying what had been said
before in the group, that the PC needs transparent procedures and criteria
for processing and deciding on inputs.

Para 7 is indeed new;  you reprimanded me the other day for not supplying
text on this point.  I said I would when there was something to insert it
into, and now there is.  It is entirely consistent with what several of us
said in interventions in the consultations, and with things said on the list
prior---that there should be a procedure for bottom up group formation and
recognition, and that groups could do various things.  If we *don't* say
this, then we are undercutting the argument that the forum isn't just a once
a year meeting.  What about it bothers you?

Para 8 on T&A: I'd rather we'd have just left this out as Robert says.  I
think it's odd to include a text at all on a point on which the group was
not in agreement (we're not doing this for other points on which there was
no agreement, btw).  But if we must have it for some reason, then I'm sorry,
W's proposal for a special Advisory Committee of T&A is totally out of the
blue and has never been discussed.  I for one would be strongly opposed to
it.  So how is deleting it but saying make sure to include T&A on the PC an
extremely troublesome step that impedes movement toward conclusion?

In short, I don't understand your reaction.  It's not like I proposed
changes to an agreed text.  I proposed changes,  based on the group's prior
discussions and your prior instructions, to a text that had not been
discussed yet, and which included elements that to my knowledge had never
been discussed or agreed.  Certainly we should agree on positions first, and
my edits tried to soften things that had not been agreed.

BTW, I don't think it's helpful to keep shouting that we only have three
hours so no more ideas are welcome, etc.  Markus will take a text from us
tomorrow or even the next day, he's not that tightly wound.

Perplexed,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:03 PM
> To: drake at hei.unige.ch; mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: [Mmwg] revised draft input
>
>
> Bill's revision gives me some problems. Some of the editing is
> quite an improvement. But massive editorial changes are combined
> with major changes in substance. Mixing those two things up is
> extremely troublesome when we have basically a few hours to agree
> on a text. We have to agree on what our position is before
> polishing the words. I suggest that we move foward using
> Wolfgang's text and once we agree on the basic points we can
> start wordsmithing.
>
> >>> "William Drake" <drake at hei.unige.ch> 2/27/2006 8:25 AM >>>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks to Wolfgang for giving us something we can sink our teeth
> into.  My suggestions and questions to the group are in the
> attached file.  Please view with Word Track Changes on.  My
> apologies to anyone who doesn't use Word, I don't know how the
> changes will be displayed in that case.
>
> Basically I like Wolfgang's direction but had some
> language/presentation concerns and felt that some important
> issues needed to be added, most notably with respect to working
> groups etc.  I also had some concerns about concrete proposals
> that to my knowledge had not been agreed or even discussed in the
> group.  I tried to recast these in a manner that seemed less
> likely to be problematic, but who knows what we can really agree
> on in the next 24 hours or so.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> *******************************************************
> William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
> Director, Project on the Information
>   Revolution and Global Governance
>   Graduate Institute for International Studies
>   Geneva, Switzerland
> President, Computer Professionals for
>    Social Responsibility
> http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
> *******************************************************
>
>
>