[MemberPubPol] [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Veni,

please concentrate and provide answers to the questions. Fred is not the 
only one to see you skirting around and trying to create a role instead 
of actually contributing. 

Too much talk and too little concrete contribution seems to be coming from 
your side. I hope your participation in other fora (are you spread too 
thin?) cannot be characterized the same way. 

I know this is undiplomatic. But a lot of people have talked and written 
more softly and more diplomatically and it hasn't worked and you've 
caused the waste of no end of people's time and energy.

To try to get the debate somewhat back on track:

1. what do you think should be done, by whom, how, and when, to address 
your concerns about governmental participation in Internet governance? In 
what way is this not addressed in the statements put forward by Brian 
Carpenter, Lynn StAmour, and Paul Twomey in the public consultation of the 
WGIG a week ago in Geneva? In what way, within your numerous fiduciary 
responsibilities, will you propose that the situation change?

Questions 2 and up will come once you reply to this one and the discussion 
is resolved or fizzles out.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty 
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5622-8540
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
 Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .



On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Veni Markovski wrote:

> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:13:04 -0400
> From: Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com>
> To: chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org, memberpubpol at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [MemberPubPol] [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming
>     discussion of the WGIG questionnaire
> 
> At 07:52 20-06-05  -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> >I tend to try to stay on topic, answering emails on a given topic with a 
> >response that is on the topic. I don't know how to have a rational 
> >discussion otherwise.
> 
> Well, could you define then the term "access" as used in your previous mail?
> I can't comment or respond on your following sentence, which is the key one 
> for explaining all:
> 
> >>At 06:53 20-06-05  -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> >>>I understand the question generally. Specifically, who would you like to 
> >>>see included in the ICANN process that has no access today?
> >>
> >>To use your words, define "access".
> >>
> >>veni
> 
> 
> As for your other remarks, since you see more topics coming... Continuing 
> to avoid them will not solve them by a magic. We all need to address the 
> problems that ISOC, ICANN and the Internet community are facing, if we want 
> to solve them. ISOC tends to try to be neutral, which does not help a lot 
> in the current debate on Internet Governance.
> 
> best,
> veni
> 
>