[governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes

[William Drake]

Parminder,

On 2/16/08 6:44 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> We need some rather quick input at this stage. We have exactly a week to get
> through the whole process.

Right, which is why I argued to no avail against a divisive and inconclusive
debate about what what we are willing to call the TC, for quickly compiling
the various points in play into a single doc people could look at, for
labeling topics/sections for easy digestion, etc.  Whatever.

At this point I suggest we recalibrate:

1.  Three separate statements is too much to expect quick consensus on.  I
would do one on mAG renewal and one on the Delhi program, combining format
and substantive suggestions.  Make them concise and easy to digest and react
to (here and in the consultation).  Paragraphs of three lines, if not bullet
points.  

2.  Abandon the long narrative approach where you develop your personal line
of reasoning, particularly on points that are contentious or have not been
discussed here, much less within the wider IGF.  Everyone reasons
differently, and not everyone here would not come to the same conclusions or
put things the same way etc.  The longer you go on, the higher the
possibility someone has an issue with something.  You can lay out elaborate
cases in IT4Change statements in order to say what you feel needs to be
said, you don't need for the caucus to agree on them.

3.  Moreover, the texts are just too long as floor interventions.  For
example, your Friday text on the IGF format is already 3 pages and > 1,000
words and you indicate there are more sections you want to add.  And that's
just one of your proposed three.

4.  I would also go for a bit more positive tone.  Even if some of us may
share your concerns to varying degrees, I don't think it's helpful for the
caucus to use language suggesting, inter alia, that the number of workshops
"severely compromises the Œconvergent identity¹ of the IGF;" that
"participants really did not take much away from any of" the main sessions,
which featured discussions "which do not produce any fruitful outcomes;"
that the main session speakers "just made their own interpretation of the
issue" and "mostly speak on areas which were remote from any implication on
global Internet related public policy" resulting in "diversion or dilution;"
and so on.  I think a better tone would be to say, right, we tried xyz in
Athens and Rio and that was fun, now we think it'd be useful to try some new
things that would be even more value-adding, etc.

Bottom line, there are like 50-60 people here who signed the caucus charter,
many have strong and diverse views, and very few, including those who've
been most active over the years, are choosing to participate in this
discussion.   I think your best chance of generating more responses and buy
in would be with relatively concise statements that hit the key points in a
manner people can process readily.  I don't think you can operate on the
silence is assent principle, and if in the end just a handful of people say
yes we don't have caucus statements.

Best,

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