[governance] IGF conclusions

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Vittorio,

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Sorry Jeanette, I mixed the two issues so this possibly wasn't very 
> clear - I meant that if you are so unfortunate not to get the floor at 
> the plenary (which is unavoidable, not everyone in a 800 people room can 
> get it)

 From what I have seen, it is only a minority of people who feeling 
speaking up with so many people in the room. My impression is that 
everybody who really wanted to could speak at this first meeting of the 
forum.

I have thought about the assertion of a restriction or regulation of 
public exchange at the forum. I would predict that the forum's first 
years might in hindsight lool like the most open and interesting ones. 
Should the forum survive its first 5 years and become political 
relevant, there will much more regulation of workshops and reporting 
thereof as we see right now. We should make good, constructive use of 
the open structure we've got right now.

jeanette

  and you can't funnel results from the workshops into the main
> sessions, then you can't get anything about your issue into the IGF 
> results from the bottom.
> 
> At the same time, I agree with your point that the formal "IGF results" 
> are not as important as getting people to actually meet and start work 
> on a specific issue, and I will definitely use the opportunity to report 
> tomorrow morning. I'm just a bit frustrated by the apparent success of 
> the attempt to "emasculate" the Forum, but I take it as temporary - 
> getting teeth and other relevant body parts added to the structure of 
> the IGF will be our task for the next year.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance