[Mmwg] Re: IGF mechanism 5.0

[Taran Rampersad]

Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>> Taran Rampersad <cnd at knowprose.com> 1/23/2006 3:41:32 AM >>>
>>>>         
>> As Vittorio wrote; "if the Chair doesn't satisfy everyone, people will 
>> stop to participate": which is dangerous for the less powerful groups, 
>> including civil society".
>>     
>
> Can you tell me how you think Vittorio's proposal would avoid that problem? 
>
> Oh, sorry, there is no proposal from him, is there? 
>   
That's a dangerous dangerous to take, Milton. The press is not only on 
Vittorio but on all of us - including you. Please tell me that you are 
willing to help form an idea that is not completely your own.
> Anyway, people will not stop participating in an IGF because they are not completely satisfied with what the chair does, unless the community we are dealing with is more immature than I think it is.
I am 'that immature'. When I cannot communicate with people who are 
involved in discussions involving my rights, I do not acknowledge their 
authority to represent me. That's the core of what I am saying. And 
that's exactly how I got involved in WSIS related issues... because I 
was not satisfied and I had the time to dedicate to this. I haven't 
gotten quite irritated enough to start my own little NGO and start 
running around within Civil Society, but I'm getting there.

> Vittorio and I were having a hypothetical debate about a situation in which the Chair actively abused his/her power. I simply pointed out that that would be self-destructive, and thus no one would be likely to do it.
>   
The Chair is never in a position to know that, since if the Chair is 
disconnected from the community, they will never know it.
>   
>> Start talking about how the community will interact with the 
>> plenary and the structure will define itself; the process in this 
>> case should define the product. 
>>     
>
> Umm, that's precisely what the model I proposed would do! 
>   
Sorry, I did not see it that way.
> We seem to be in violent agreement.
I am not in agreement with you, and my disagreement with you is pretty 
benign at this point.
>  Take a look at the actual proposal, not a few superficial comments about it.
I did look at the proposal, and I told you in a few words what I thought 
of it. I'm not discrediting it, I am simply pointing out that we 
wouldn't be here if the models worked in the past. I will take the time, 
look at it again, and give you the...
>  I'm more than willing to listen to concrete criticisms of it.
>   
wordy criticism you wish. I just used less words here.
> I'm open to other proposals that work better and solve defined problems in the structures I proposed. But so far I have seen no concrete problems identified and no alternatives put forward.
>   
I don't view this as a competition. I recognize the work that you've put 
into this so far, and I'm not discrediting it in any way. What I am 
doing is saying that I don't agree with it, and I'll give you the point 
by point reasons sometime this week, probably before Wednesday. I was 
simply trying to save time by putting my thoughts out there and allowing 
yourself and others to at least consider them.

-- 
Taran Rampersad
Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago
cnd at knowprose.com

Looking for contracts/work!
http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786

New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo