<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font size="+1"><font face="Nimbus Roman No9 L">Hi All<br>
<br>
I agree a bit of discussion here about the current politics around the
IGF, in light of our priorities, would be useful.<br>
<br>
There are two directions (which could at times look as opposing) in
which things are being pulled, or can move.<br>
<br>
One, retaining the core features of the IGF as we know it.<br>
<br>
Two, seeking (small to substantive) improvements in the IGF.<br>
<br>
I do think that the danger of, and problems with, landing up with no
improvements in the IGF at all, is as much as that of not retaining the
'currently core features' of the IGF.<br>
<br>
I myself do not think there is much danger of loosing these 'core
features', but since others seems to, it will be good for them to both
list these 'core features' and tell us why, and how, there is a danger
of losing them.<br>
<br>
In the same way we can discuss what kind of 'improvements' may be being
proposed, and which kinds may be good and which not. Which kind of
'improvements' may result in the IGF losing its core features in a way
we dont want it to.<br>
</font></font>
<blockquote>>It'd be better to give certain governments and
especially UN NY reasons
to think carefully about the desirability and >sustainability of the
"improvements" they're considering. (Bill)<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Bill, can you roughly list what you think the proposed "improvements"
whose sustainability and desirability needs to be thought carefully
about.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<blockquote><br>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1"><font face="Nimbus Roman No9 L"><br>
<br>
</font></font><br>
On Tuesday 24 August 2010 12:27 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:7492978A-71B3-4B5E-9965-D016FE4AD429@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Hi
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="">On 24-Aug-2010, at
12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</span><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="">What Bill was
alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is the most
important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues that
are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the
CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC
proposes a name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the
speaker to draft entirely on its own but should reflect the various
sensitivities present in the IGC itself. This should be our
understanding (and practice) of democracy.</span><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I agree up until now, but...
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="">This <b>clearly
calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, </b>as has
successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for
people to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done
as you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening
and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated as
IGC statements and have <span class="Apple-style-span" style="">been
left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
What I said was "we should be somewhat strategic about how we use these
opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message." I
didn't mean this to imply group cooperation on writing text; speakers
should of course be trusted and free to say what they want. I just
meant a bit of coordination might be helpful to them, e.g. the caucus
could discuss a little what sort of message people think would be
useful, and the speakers could consider taking on board anything they
think particularly important or reflective of consensus. The important
point is to be cognizant of what's going on with the politics around
renewal and use the opportunity to intervene effectively in the debate;
to me at least, a general run-down of known CS positions on various IG
issues wouldn't be sufficient, it's not 2007 or whatever. It'd be
better to give certain governments and especially UN NY reasons to
think carefully about the desirability and sustainability of the
"improvements" they're considering.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>