[governance] Comments on Rio - Suggestions for Delhi - main

[DRAKE William]

Hi Parminder

Parminder wrote:
> Bill
> 
> 
>>I meant that the whole thing should be about IG, institutions and issues,
>>which is entirely consistent with your sentence (although you may have a
>>special reading of that language).  
> 
> 
> I mean, well let me be blunt, we need to know whats happening about enhanced
> cooperation (EC). Not only know, it is the right and the responsibility of

Ok. if that's what you had in mind I would make it clearer you propose
to talk about EC per se.  Of course, if you're suggesting this as a IGC
proposal we'll need to get consensus on it.  If people here do agree,
it'll still be a hard sell in the consultation and mAG, but worth a try...

A process suggestion: as more topics have been tossed into the pot
piecemeal since you circulated your first draft statement, it's a little
difficult to know just where we are. You might want to recirculate with
with all the bits in one place and try to coordinate a structured
discussion of each section sequentially.  If you wait and pull a rabbit
out of your hat too close to the due date, things could fall apart with
objections to part a, b, c...just a thought.
> 
> As for the whole thing being about IG issues and institutions, we know that
> the workshops happen the whole thing is not about them. And also that a
> focused examination of EC and other specific insituional requirement issues
> is at a different level. 

I don't follow, but anyway in saying the IG forum should be about IG,I
meant including the main sessions, which really have been more on
general Internet issues than the actual conduct of collective governance
vis those issues.  You've agreed with me on this prior so probably we're
talking past each other here.
> 
> I don't understand your point on
> 
>>Athens
>>Rio, there was no overarching theme, really.
> 
> 
> Weren't development and capacity building cross-cutting themes for both
> Athens, and Rio. I can understand if oyu do not remember, because that
> really means nothing. But the fact was prominently displayed in all official
> docs etc. 

I remember very clearly what they were about (?), and despite the
development label on the program, as with IG, I did not actually hear
much focused discussion about development per se in the main sessions,
nor in most of the workshops I attended, which was part of why I did the
development agenda ws.

Words are losing meaning in the IGF...

> 
>>Sort of your pre-Rio formulation, a bit abstract as a main session rec.
>>maybe specify what issues and institutions you're addressing?
> 
> 
> That was Milton's formulation though I largely agreed with it. Does my
> placing EC in the centre of the formulation make it clearer? A lot of people
> - Wolfgang, McTim on this list, and some others like in the IGF workshop at
> Delhi ICANN meeting are suggesting that EC is what is actually happening
> right now at the IGF. Lets examine this perspective also. 

Fine, propose it in a manner everyone can grok and we'll see if there's
consensus.

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