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