Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 1 Mar 2014 16:04:25 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Good suggestion, thanks. sure are lots of moving parts to this whole machine….
SP
On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 01-Mar-14 17:55, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Interesting. Is it likely we will see that this time around as well?
>> Got any suggestions as to how I distance myself from this kind of
>> policy laundering? Given the lack of clarity about the high level
>> multistakeholder committee, I am already suspecting something like
>> this will be passed in front of us for endorsement, likely at the
>> meeting because we dont appear to have a prior role. Makes getting
>> alternative text in by march 8 all the more important, if there is no
>> faith in the process.... Stephanie
>
> You have no agreed language that binds. WGEC does because we are a UN process, and they have rules about the sanctity of agreed language, even when that langauge is just a declaration and not a treaty.
>
> Perhaps you can build on the idea that WGEC is considering a recommendation that there be follow discussions among all stakeholders on stakeholder R&R and how could you do any less. And that therefore they should also endorse that in perhaps even stronger terms.
>
> If we can into our May meeting with y'allhaving strengthened our language that would be cool. And helpful. If you weaken it or ignore that will cause pain.
>
> cheers
>
> avri
|
|
|