[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG

[Parminder]

> This said, I agree that the four issues that are currently in the draft
> are quite important, so let's not make this bigger than it is: I would
> suggest that we propose these four as additional main sessions, and let
> the AG decide what to do with our suggestion, though I suspect that the
> reply might be "can't you do these as workshops?".
> --
Vittorio

This is in response to your and Bill's email. Can we just write a line or
two of intro that the following are the themes suggested by us for the main
sessions - without qualifying it any further, not saying that they are to
replace existing structures (which some think they shd) or saying that they
are in addition to the existing themes (which is the view of some others).

My suggestion for the intro is

IGC will like the following themes to be addressed in the main sessions at
the IGF, in view of their central importance to the current discourse on IG.


(and we put the four themes as per draft with minor modifications suggested
by some people)

Parminder  

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:18 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG
> 
> William Drake ha scritto:
> >>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.
> 
> Ok, clarifying again: I wasn't perplexed about the themes in themselves,
> but about the idea that we would ask that the IGF's four main sessions
> should stop being an open place for "any stakeholder to raise any
> issue", and become four specialized sessions (though specialized on
> quite broad issues). My raising of another theme was not meant to get my
> favourite issue added to the other favourite ones, but just to show that
> there are plenty of other very important issues, and that it would be
> hard to convince anyone that our four are so important that the entire
> main thread of the IGF should be devoted to them and to them only, even
> if we provided rationales for this proposal, something that we're not
> really doing in our draft.
> 
> This said, I agree that the four issues that are currently in the draft
> are quite important, so let's not make this bigger than it is: I would
> suggest that we propose these four as additional main sessions, and let
> the AG decide what to do with our suggestion, though I suspect that the
> reply might be "can't you do these as workshops?".
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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