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