<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html><head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head>Thanks. I'm going to Geneva for the MAG meeting (thanks to APC support). I will take care of the workshops. I haven't been following the list in the last few weeks. Any update about the main concerns from IGC that I should make sure to defend, please let me know. <br/><br/>All the best, Katitza. <p>Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T</p><hr/><div><b>From: </b> Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel@gmail.com>
</div><div><b>Sender: </b> governance@lists.cpsr.org
</div><div><b>Date: </b>Thu, 12 May 2011 09:59:54 -0300</div><div><b>To: </b><governance@lists.cpsr.org>; Norbert Bollow<nb@bollow.ch></div><div><b>ReplyTo: </b> governance@lists.cpsr.org,Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel@gmail.com>
</div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [governance] Merger of workshop "Reflection on the Indian
proposal towards an IGF 2.0"</div><div><br/></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Like Jeremy
said, the reasons are difficult to speculate. I believe that our main concern
should be if the merger is in the best interest of our proposal.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Two points
I made in the meeting yesterday were that we should not do a revival of CSTD WG
(go through all topics in a superficial manner without reaching any conclusions)
and we should not focus on procedural issues (ex: CSTD WG x MAG as a way of
improving the IGF). These are the two potential shortcomings of the proposals
advanced, respectively, by the business sector and the technical community, in
my view.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">A merger should
not make us lose our focus. Using indian proposal as a starting point to
discuss topics in-depth could help us ventilate ideas, reach a clear
understanding and exorcise some ghosts that hunt IGF’s closet for a while, such
as the fear of more concrete outcomes.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">The only
possibility I see for a merger would be that we have a longer workshop, with
half of it dedicated to a “setting the scene” and an overview of the main
issues advanced in CSTD WG (that seems to be the core of the proposal from the business sector)
and the other half would be dedicated to focus on the topics covered by Indian
proposal. But I don’t know if that would be acceptable to the other groups and
I am not convinced this would be in the best interest of our proposal in the
end, but only a move driven by political considerations.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">In any
case, we should just be aware that if we do not merge, other groups will
probably try to impinge us with the political burden of non-cooperation. We
cannot let this stick. There are always several IGF workshops on NN, youth, etc. So
why there can’t be 2 or 3 workshops on IGF improvement?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Marília</span></p>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Norbert Bollow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 12/05/11 16:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
> > Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> >> The ICC/BASIS and ISOC were invited to participate in our workshop,<br>
> >> "Reflection on the Indian proposal towards an IGF 2.0". Instead, they<br>
> >> responded by proposing competing workshops of their own and suggesting<br>
><br>
> >> that the three be merged.<br>
> > Is their motivation for choosing this course of action known?<br>
> ><br>
> > How do their perspectives on workshop outcomes compare to the<br>
> > desires of Marilia and yourself?<br>
><br>
> A summary was sent around privately after the teleconference, but we<br>
> have been requested not to repost it. Anyway, my notes of the<br>
> teleconference include a lot of catch-phrases like "holistic dialogue",<br>
> "all-encompassing", "general debate", "range of ideas"... as opposed to<br>
> the much more focused agenda for our workshop. I'm not sure how much<br>
> more I can say about their motivations or perspectives, but it is not<br>
> difficult to speculate.<br>
<br>
</div>Ok, given that there has been plenty of holistic dialogue and general<br>
debate on the all-encompassing range of ideas already, I'd strongly<br>
support sticking to the "much more focused agenda" that Marilia and<br>
you have in mind. It's IMO not a bad thing to have two workshops on<br>
the same topic if the two workshops differ significantly in how they<br>
approach the topic, provided they're not scheduled to both take place<br>
at the same time. IGF participants are then free to attend one or the<br>
other or both. (I personally certainly won't be found attending the<br>
non-focused one, but nevertheless I think that there's nothing wrong<br>
with some groups wanting to organize another opportunity for a broad<br>
debate for those who wish to participate in that.)<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<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, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>FGV Direito Rio<br><br>Center for Technology and Society<br>Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br>
</html>