<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3492" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Just now I see Parminder's response, which is even more
reassuring, as Parminder is on the MAG. Let me express agreement strongly with
these objectives: </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>(1) workshops more relevant and focussed on key issues, rather than
less<SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<P><SPAN class=521244620-24032009></SPAN>(2) get different viewpoints and
positions together at the same place rather than different rooms, which again I
know you do, in general, support. <BR><SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Not much
to add to these comments, except to allow them to be repeated so that people
will read it again:</FONT> </SPAN></P>
<P>On the other hand, the MAG filter can rather be used to discourage and remove
proposals, that have what you recognise as the key problem in the workshops
space - in your words, worksh<FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">ops</FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" color=#000000> '<BIG><SPAN
class=163521817-17032009><FONT size=2><BIG>that were
</BIG></FONT></SPAN></BIG></FONT><SPAN class=163521817-17032009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2><BIG><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"
color=#000000>thrown together at the last minute with no coherent theme
and/or had unbalanced viewpoints or stakeholder
mixes".</FONT></BIG><BR><BR><BIG><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"
color=#000000>Your fear that the MAG process may be used to make
'</FONT></BIG></FONT></SPAN><BIG><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"
color=#000000><SPAN class=163521817-17032009><FONT size=2><BIG>Workshops become
bland and meaningless' is very important to keep in mind. You mention two,
related, aspects to this problem. In both cases I support your position strongly
and we should do out best through IGC interventions and presence in MAG to make
sure that MAG's processes in selecting and advising mergers is informed of these
positions. <SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></BIG></FONT></SPAN></FONT></BIG></P>
<P><BIG><SPAN class=163521817-17032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2><BIG><SPAN class=521244620-24032009>These are indeed my main concerns.
Good that you understand them so well (but then you have been on the receiving
end...)</SPAN></BIG></FONT></SPAN></BIG></P>
<P>(1) The problem that many in the IGF arena have a (very) active position
against certain discussions (and not just certain positions) is endemic, and
needs to be constantly engaged with, and its impact minimized.<SPAN
class=521244620-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Yes!</FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR>(2) A related problem, as shown by your
IPv6 example, is that, if one is not able to stop certain important global
policy discussion through obstructing at the agenda setting level, it is then
done by mixing 'capacity building' and implementation issues when core policy
issues may be sought to be discussed. As you argue, just because the general
name/space of an issue - IPv6, connectivity, CIRs etc - may be same or
shared, it doesn't mean that we can keep bringing very
different 'aspects' of the issue together in the same discussion, which
just obstructs meaningful discussions. <SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Yes!</FONT> <FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>This is a very
important distinction and you have articulated it even better than I did. Note
that one need not attribute nefarious motives to anyone for this problem to
arise. But it will arise if we group people solely on the basis of "workshop
titles."</FONT></SPAN><BR><BR>If the IGF can somehow find a way across the above
two problems, we would then have made a huge move forward and be ready to
discuss some real global Internet policy issues which is the IGF's primary
mandate to discuss. At present, I can only say that this is a political struggle
and we keep trying our best. <BR><BR><SPAN class=521244620-24032009><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> OK! </FONT></SPAN></P></BODY></HTML>