[governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants

[William Drake]

Hi Adam,

On 10/22/07 7:49 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> I think the MAG has been responsible for helping
> to convene meetings, not organize the
> "intersessional" process (don't like the idea of
> intersessional!)  No one's discussed IGF as a
> process of dialogue beyond the MAG encouraging
> dynamic coalitions.  It gets more like an annual
> conference and only an annual conference, and
> that's bad. This could be an important issue for
> the workshop to consider.  When the Tunis Agenda

It's long been clear that it's just an annual conference, and this should
indeed be a key point of discussion in the workshop.   Moreover, this
condition can't be disembedded from the larger range of ways in which the
IGF has deviated significantly from both the early visions and the Tunis
mandate, without any public discussion or agreement.  As the topic is
potentially contentious, it would useful if people who agree with what the
caucus laid out two years ago could come to the event prepared to advance
some ideas on ways to bridge the gap---both ideal configurations and
ratcheted back median positions that might actually be politically viable
given the diversity of preferences.

Cheers,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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