<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>On 3 Aug, 2013, at 5:10 PM, George Sadowsky <<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div>On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:09 AM, parminder wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">It is important to first agree on what the IGF
is....<br>
<br>
One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and
George's latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to
be).<br></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I understand that my e-mail may have suggested that to you, but I take the IGF to be somewhat different, and I describe it more fully below. ... Finally, it is not a decision making body which, in my opinion, is one of the essential reasons for its success.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Even as a conference, it's not looking like much of a success at the moment.</div><div><br></div><div>Indeed it's been <span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">so successful that people who do real policy view it as a joke or a distraction (I've heard this many times), the next meeting is on the verge of cancellation, with the entire IGF likely to follow it when its mandate comes up again for renewal. </span></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>But what happens when there are different points of view within the group? Is it reasonable to force one view for the purpose of defining norms, or when there are different views of what the IGF is? Or is the variation in views a part of a healthy environment that should be valued in making progress toward better understanding?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The just-a-conference" group have successfully "forced their view" on the others until now, by vetoing changes necessary for the IGF to fulfil the rest of its mandate.</div><div><br></div><div>Maybe the others should have a few years to try things their way and see if the can outdo the "success" that we've seen so far.</div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">
</font></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Does this group tolerate such positions that appear to be seen by some as compromise positions or equivocation? Is there room in this group for diverse views, or do they just get in the way of creating unified positions vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups?</div></div></blockquote><br><div>We haven't seen that spirit of tolerance within the MAG or Secretariat. If there hasn't been a consensus in favour of trying things that deviate too far from the conference format (and there never will be a consensus, due to the technical community and friends), the default has been not to try, rather than to give it a shot for the sake of tolerance. </div></body></html>