<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>No one, from this quarter, in this thread, has said anything against reaching out or spreading the word (or indeed said anything - at all - on the subject). Indeed - indeed - over long years, the call, other threads, has been to make the IGC appropriately inclusive, not centered on a few who post most of the time. That is central to the success of something that might, one day, be reasonably representative of at least one slice of civil society.</div><div><br></div><div>Rather, the (whole) topic in this thread - from here - is about the quality of the discussion space the IGC creates. A forked discussion space certainly would degrade what is already a challenge to conduct, around the world, and suitably for many different cultures.</div><div><br></div><div>Outreach is separate from quality of discussion space. Ultimately, one day, a wider constituency could bring front and center the sort of problem sometimes discussed re global governance, about how to facilitate exchange when a group grows really large. But for IGC that lies in the future, if ever.</div><div><br></div><div>As to 'noise,' Louis pretty clearly points to the real problem of doing outreach well, rather than failing to have a well-thought out program.</div><div><br></div><div>Outreach is indeed important. But not at the expense of degrading the discussion space in the first place. It is key, I suggest, not to conflate the two.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><br><div><div>On Sep 7, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hello all,<div><br></div><div>On another note, this discussion, or variants of same, seems to return year after year in different guises. <div><br></div><div><div>I do find the general "reluctance" of the IGC list to seek to expand beyond its core membership base ("noise???") to be quite mystifying, especially given its mandate to, if not represent, certainly provide a forum for, the views of Civil Society in the areas surrounding IG.</div> <div><br></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <i><span style="color:rgb(61, 61, 61);font-family:Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:300;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255)">The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.</span> </i></blockquote> <br></div><div>I, for one, am all for expanding the communication channels by which the IGC seeks to effect its Mission and associated objectives, and using that opportunity to direct the "noise" to a more focussed and ultimately engaging experience facilitated by IGC "branded" tools.</div> <div><br></div><div>And, at the risk of playing firestarter, +1 for a real names policy in the IGC social toolkit as well.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,</div><div><br></div><div>Tracy </div><div><br></div><div> </div> <div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Deirdre Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:williams.deirdre@gmail.com" target="_blank">williams.deirdre@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I have been wondering about noise as well.<div>Communication seems to me to work more efficiently, in terms of "these are the issues", as information emanating from a known and/or trusted individual. Rather than one large "IGC" campaign, individual initiatives by IGC members, who use Facebook and other such services, to spread information about the issues of Internet Governance might have more real effect. And this would also serve to break the language difficulties to a great extent.</div> <div>But one never knows how things will work until the experiment is complete - so all power to Izumi for experimenting.</div><div>Deirdre<font color="#888888"><br><br></font><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div> On 7 September 2011 09:46, Louis Pouzin (well) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pouzin@well.com" target="_blank">pouzin@well.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> </div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div><div></div><div><div>On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 14:55, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tracyhackshaw@gmail.com" target="_blank">tracyhackshaw@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> </div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex"> Still not sure why Jeremy's suggestion is not acceptable.<br> <br> Agree with Jacqueline, Siva and David at the same time.<br> <br> And why not use not only FB, but G+, LinkedIn, Orkut, YouTube, Quora,<br> etc etc not to discuss or "fully engage" but to EDUCATE non-IGC<br> members about the IGC at a high level and POINT to the IGC Open<br> Discussion Tools/Social Network/Thingamajig?<br></blockquote></div><div>- - -<br><br>My hunch is that would trigger much more noise than signal. Then who has enough spare time to debunk the load of misconceptions ?<br> Good luck.<br> - - -<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>