Best Bits: Agenda Organization Options

William Drake william.drake at
Tue Sep 11 03:03:04 EDT 2012


On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:43 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 11/09/2012, at 2:09 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at> wrote:
>> I'm not opposed to doing any of that, but if this gets as much focus
>> as you seem to suggest, and if (as I would conjecture) the majority of
>> potential participants does not have a strong particular interest in
>> the chosen topic, the majority of potential participants would either
>> not come in the first place, or go away feeling empty and unsatisfied.
> True enough.  Certainly some of those invited think that the fuss over WCIT is just a beat-up,

I'm not familiar with the expression, but if the folks referred to believe that a global treaty negotiation among 190 countries is uninteresting or unimportant to IG, and that all the CS groups and other stakeholders around the world that are focusing on this intensively are engaged in a mass hallucination, I would certainly be interested to hear their argument!

> and others think that "enhanced cooperation" is code for handing the Internet over to the UN.  So my opinion is that we should cover both, in order (as Norbert says) to attract and satisfy the most people, even if they are more interested in some "bits" of the agenda than others.

In which case it's hard to see how your initial proposal on drafting statements would work.

>  Hopefully also they will be challenged and may even come away reassessing some of their preconceptions.

It seems the geography of preferences for the meeting is becoming more fluid and variable as we proceed.  Since we have a couple months that's not a big problem, but maybe at this point we need tools other than a list to aggregate preferences and see what appeals most to whom?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Bestbits mailing list