[WSIS CS-Plenary] UN at odds over internet's future

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Bill, I disagree. We know how the press works. We are familiar with 
the "attention economy" their headlines reflect. It is up to us to 
suggest snappy conclusions for journalists to adopt. We are silly if we 
don't even try.
jeanette

William Drake wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As I said at the report presentation Monday, this is an annoying
> problem, but it is primarily with respect to some "journalists,"
> pundits, bloggers, etc. who are firmly wed to the
> evil-UN-run-by-dictators-wants-to-control-your-Internet theme; the
> Srebrenica article I mentioned was simply one of the more appalling
> examples.  I don't know that the secretariat could have done
> anything, really, to steer them back to earth, or that it would have
> been politically smart for it to try.  They were navigating between a
> lot of government sensibilities throughout this process, and this
> drove a lot of stuff that might seem weird or ill-considered.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org
> [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of Bertrand de La
> Chapelle Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:33 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>  Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] UN at odds over internet's future
> 
> 
> 
> The other approach from the press is basically the UN versus US
> battle.
> 
> Unfortunately this only reflects the fact that the group did not
> devote attention to the framing of its public presentation but left
> the press to define its own understanding from the document itself.
> No doubt they went to the simplistic presentation.
> 
> I'm afraid the opportunity has been missed to emphqsize the
> originality of the group, the approach it took and how it considers
> its report as a positive outcome.
> 
> Bertrand
> 
> 
> On 7/19/05, Jacqueline Morris <jacqueline.morris at gmail.com> wrote: 
> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire
> list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for
> specific people. Your cooperation is highly appreciated] 
> _______________________________________
> 
> Interesting - as a member of the WGIG I thought that group consensus 
> since February on providing multiple options in the report to the 
> Prepcom to negotiate with was reaching an agreement.... obviously I 
> misunderstood the meaning of the word "agreement"! Seems the only 
> meaning for "agreement" is to have only one option available. 
> Jacqueline Morris
> 
> On 7/18/05, Robert Guerra < rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
>> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the
>> entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended
>> for specific people. Your cooperation is highly appreciated] 
>> _______________________________________
>> 
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4692743.stm
>> 
>> A UN group charged with deciding how the net should be run has
>> failed to reach a decision. The group's report suggests four
>> possible futures for net governance that range from no change to
>> complete overhaul. The proposals will go forward to a key UN net
>> and society conference due to take place in November.
>> 
>> The report comes as the US says it plans to keep its role as
>> overseer of the net's core administrative body.
>> 
>> [snipped]
>> 
>> -- Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> Managing Director,
>> Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing
>> list Plenary at wsis-cs.org 
>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>> 
> 
> 
> -- ______________________ Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com 
> T&T Music and videos online 
> _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list 
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org 
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> 
> 
>