<div>An observation on knitting concepts:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>At WSIS (I and II I believe) (and some of us met there, hello again) "i<u>nterconnecitivty</u>" was the byword. Confession: I didn't really understand a difference from "<u>connectivit</u>y" but we do gain the phrase "<u><em>inter".</em></u> Seems a useful tie in to network metaphors and edge ones both. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wouldn't it be nice if CS approached the kudos and regrets (paraphrase) from such a perspective. There are many rich comments here implying disconnections but also connections that held. (Parenthetically, I'll try to glean some real-time (then) screen shorts from the remote shore to show some gains in connectivity online).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It's really helpful, by the way, to read here creative and incisive ways of describing <em>cat-belling</em> and <em>emperor clothing</em>. Very elegant and very instructive.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Warm regards, Linda.</div>
<div>Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff</div>
<div>*Respectful Interfaces*.</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/17/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Parminder</b> <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>> 2. Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal<br>> line<br>> of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been<br>
> discussed here, much less within the wider IGF. Everyone reasons<br>> differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions<br>> or<br>> put things the same way etc. The longer you go on, the higher the<br>
> possibility someone has an issue with something. You can lay out<br>> elaborate<br>> cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be<br>> said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them.<br>
<br>I am going to prepare a more concise statement, but often the discussion and<br>arguments are more important for this group than for the IGF consultations,<br>and therefore I let the arguments stay in along with substantive points.<br>
<br>But I think the reasoning was not so much personal. The statement takes its<br>point of departure as the agreed text on the theme proposal on 'Role and<br>mandate of IGF' for Rio. Especially the sentence - that some of the mandates<br>
cannot be fulfilled merely by holding an annual conference (drafted by you).<br><br>So, as per this, I divided the kinds of functions IGF is supposed to do into<br>2 types. (I thought it make sense to suggest structural changes in IGF in<br>
context of functions it is supposed to perform, and not just throw some<br>points at them without this connection). Rather than a somewhat dismissive<br>'annual cof' tag I used the one Nitin is currently most fond of 'open town<br>
hall meeting'.<br><br>I think we have all been in favor of a better organized IGF with plenaries<br>and workshops linked to each other (our 07 statements). But it is our<br>experience that all workshops cannot be forced into such structuring - which<br>
limits the diversity etc. Swiss gov doc asks for limiting the number of<br>workshops for better structuring, but we are on record to say (in 07<br>statements) that there should be no restriction on number of workshops.<br>
<br>Given above imperatives I suggested two concurrent architectures for the<br>Delhi IGF -one which is open and un-restrictive, and the other more tightly<br>organized using WGs. It more or less flows from our existing thinking on<br>
this matter. It is also something which was already tried - though<br>half-heartedly - for Rio, in classifying two types of workshops.<br><br>One thing I added was a specific critique of the plenaries. Everyone I know<br>
thought there is a problem with plenaries, but we can discuss this here.<br><br>> 4. I would also go for a bit more positive tone. Even if some of us may<br>> share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the<br>
> caucus to use language suggesting, ....<br><br>OK, we can tone it down. Pl suggest language. But we shd also be careful<br>about what happens when we write in the manner of<br><br>we tried xyz in<br>> Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some<br>
> new<br>> things that would be even more value-adding, etc.<br><br>They will say, thanks for the compliment, we know you have even greater<br>ambition and that is natural esp for CS. But lets consolidate our gains<br>
first. You described as jaw dropping the manner in which Kummer build a<br>-everything-is-going-great-at-IGF picture in the IGF workshop at ICANN<br>Delhi. Who do you think is going to bell this cat, or point to the emperor's<br>
non-clothes if CS doesn't. I think we need not be too cautious here. We are<br>even more 'cautious' than gov. and business sector in IGF deliberations, and<br>that's not quite right.<br><br>On the other hand, we are going to say positive things - like about new<br>
openness - where it is due.<br><br>My IGF format statement has only a few key points<br><br>1. We need to structure it to enable to get the parts of the mandate which<br>are not being performed or well performed at present.<br>
<br>2. Plenaries should discuss specific public policy issues, and not just some<br>general stuff.<br><br>3. A set of workshops should be aligned to each plenaries.<br><br>4. other set of workshops can be open, and cover more varied topics.<br>
<br>5. separate working groups consisting of MAG members and some outsiders<br>should prepare for each plenary and its associated workshops.<br><br>6. These WGs should also synthesize the outcomes of each plenary - even if<br>
as a set of views presented.<br><br>That's all nothing more. I think it is better to make a proposal for a clear<br>structural change, and only focus on that. Other points about conf<br>facilities and such can be made in May. This may be the time when some<br>
points about structural changes can get in, later it will be too late.<br><br>So please let me know what members think about these points.<br><br>And lets work on our agreements on these points. Issues of language, taking<br>
slants that more positive or less, cutting out descriptions like 'divergent<br>and convergent identity' can be commented on separately, and worked on.<br>That's less of a problem.<br><br>Parminder<br><br><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: William Drake [mailto:<a href="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch">william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</a>]<br>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:42 PM<br>> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance<br>> Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes<br>
><br>> Parminder,<br>><br>> On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> > We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to<br>
> get<br>> > through the whole process.<br>><br>> Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and<br>> inconclusive<br>> debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly<br>
> compiling<br>> the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for<br>> labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc. Whatever.<br>><br>> At this point I suggest we recalibrate:<br>
><br>> 1. Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus on. I<br>> would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining format<br>> and substantive suggestions. Make them concise and easy to digest and<br>
> react<br>> to (here and in the consultation). Paragraphs of three lines, if not<br>> bullet<br>> points.<br>><br>> 2. Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal<br>> line<br>
> of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been<br>> discussed here, much less within the wider IGF. Everyone reasons<br>> differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions<br>
> or<br>> put things the same way etc. The longer you go on, the higher the<br>> possibility someone has an issue with something. You can lay out<br>> elaborate<br>> cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be<br>
> said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them.<br>><br>> 3. Moreover, the texts are just too long as floor interventions. For<br>> example, your Friday text on the IGF format is already 3 pages and > 1,000<br>
> words and you indicate there are more sections you want to add. And<br>> that's<br>> just one of your proposed three.<br>><br>> 4. I would also go for a bit more positive tone. Even if some of us may<br>
> share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the<br>> caucus to use language suggesting, inter alia, that the number of<br>> workshops<br>> "severely compromises the convergent identity¹ of the IGF;" that<br>
> "participants really did not take much away from any of" the main<br>> sessions,<br>> which featured discussions "which do not produce any fruitful outcomes;"<br>> that the main session speakers "just made their own interpretation of the<br>
> issue" and "mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication<br>> on<br>> global Internet related public policy" resulting in "diversion or<br>> dilution;"<br>> and so on. I think a better tone would be to say, right, we tried xyz in<br>
> Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some<br>> new<br>> things that would be even more value-adding, etc.<br>><br>> Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus<br>
> charter,<br>> many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've<br>> been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this<br>> discussion. I think your best chance of generating more responses and<br>
> buy<br>> in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points in<br>> a<br>> manner people can process readily. I don't think you can operate on the<br>> silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people<br>
> say<br>> yes we don't have caucus statements.<br>><br>> Best,<br>><br>> Bill<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br><br><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br></blockquote></div><br>