[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[William Drake]

Hi,


On 5/7/07 10:01 AM, "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:

> However, I think that in this case we first need an introductory
> sentence that says something like "we think that rather having four
> broad sessions it would be better to have four focused ones on specific
> topics for each theme" (in your version) or "we think that in addition
> to the four broad sessions we would like to see more sessions focused on
> specific topics" (in Jeremy's). By the way, I am not too sure about the
> first idea - it's true that those sessions are vast, but it's also true
> that there are many different participants with many different pet
> issues, and picking one over the others is not going to fly very well.

I don't understand why this is mysterious.  In the draft there are twelve
sessions devoted to the four "Athens themes" (I'd like to refer to them as
that, rather than having them elevated to something that every IGF must be
organized around forever more), three on each.  We're asking for them to
accept doing two on each, eight in all, and devoting four slots to our
themes. A fairly moderate request, but probably one that will be regarded as
sweeping.   Asking for more would require they throw out wholesale what's
already been discussed in mAG etc.

> I think that we should not talk by slogans and accusations. I think that
> the IGF should have a way to generate practical outcomes and I see that
> some parties have been trying to oppose that by all means, but
> attributing the lack of this capability to the overall bad faith of the
> people you are talking to won't make it easier for them to sympathize
> with your request.

As I feared, I think Parminder's introductory text is too negative in tone
to attract broad agreement here, too selective in saying what we think are
the most important questions, too redundant with the themes identified
thereafter ( do we need to say twice in different ways we want to talk about
the mandate, etc?), and that debating it will slow us down further.  I would
either delete or slim down to a couple of non-accusatory sentences.  Our
topical suggestions speak for themselves.

BD



____________________________________________________________
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