[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[William Drake]

Hi,


On 5/7/07 11:33 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> We only have 4 main session themes - and not 8 or 12 or anything.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, must stop multitasking while writing.  I meant that
there are three time slots per theme but right, these are broken up into
main, speed, and workshop tracks, and I viewed what we're proposing as
replacing one of those tracks, presumably the speed thing.  I suspect that
if we say replace the one main session on each of the Athens themes the
answer will be no, full stop, because key stakeholders are wedded to these
non-controversial themes and it's envisioned that workshops would be related
to them as well.
 
As I said at the outset, I suspect even this won't fly and IGC should be
prepared to organize workshops on the four themes if we can agree they're
worth doing.  I see 11th hour "what about this topic, what about that topic"
starting to happen, so it's not clear we'll even get closure on the four, at
least not without a vote.
> 

>> too selective in saying what we think are
>> the most important questions,
> 
> I don't know what you mean by this. I have only said in the into that IGF is
> focusing on its deliberative space nature, and let it do it earnestly.

Selective in that it said these are the four topics we think are the most
important, when people here are saying others are too, ergo it makes sense
to lose that framing.
 
> I am fine with any suggestions. But do you still think, after seeing
> Vittorio's email, that topical suggestions speak for themselves ??? after

Yes, and I don't know why Vittorio's messages seem so perplexed about long
running discussions.

> Last, what you speaking of as a negative tone, is something I had no option
> but to use.... I think IGF is being hijacked (you also said so in the email
> in which you said you may now be favorably disposed to the idea of making it
> an Internet facilitation forum). I feel that the way this is adding to the
> global governance deficit (you also know the issues about GAID) is  a
> serious problem. I will certainly speak out against it..

You personally should speak out against it, but as co-coordinator of a
rather diversely opinionated grouping it doesn't make sense to advance
language we know know some will oppose if the idea is to reach rapid
agreement.  There's not much point in you and I having an extended bilateral
on this, you are aware that there are others here who don't see things as
you do, so I'm suggesting we hew as close as we can to things that are less
likely to generate objections post hoc or this will never come together.

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