[governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes

[Parminder]

> 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.


Yes, Bill, I am going to do all that - I mean, put the statements in a
clearer closer-to-final form... I kept the Sunday for that. Meanwhile, I
have some defending to do here, and if it is distracting, I apologize for
the indulgence. 

In my view the feb consultations are very important with the possibility of
some re-examination of the MAG, and possibly IGF structures. It is important
that IGC is able to provide some substantive contributions - which are
specific and clear. There is no point in keeping on claiming ourselves as
the primary CS forum in this space and not really contribute anything of
substance. I mean more that the regular stuff of - give us more
representation, give good facilities at the conf space and such...

It is easy to put some 'regular' stuff in a statement and make it focused
and get consensus easily. I don’t see much point in doing it. Which is why
my effort was aimed at evoking greater involvement, soliciting really
substantive suggestions and a good discussion around them, and from there to
see if we could get some really meaningful points in, which justify the
claims of IGC to be whatever it claims to be. 

In the first instance, a few weeks back I merely put together a set of
questions that seem to be connected to the main issue(s) at hand, taking
from some discussion on this list, and on the MAG list. (BTW, Tech community
issue had some prominence there)

No one came back. That leaves me in some problem. Then I listed some points
for MAG renewal - relatively clear point wise text. There was some response,
and the distraction on tech community issue, which I will speak about in a
different email. 

You must remember that at early stages I will merely be suggesting some
possible points and text - partly from what I know could likely be accepted
by the group, as per earlier discussions, and partly some suggestions from
my side. Everyone at this stage has a right to suggest points and texts -
that’s the only way some progress can be made over what we have always said
all these years, and our statements can be addressing more of the
immediately presented context in a meaningful way.

It was deliberate now to present finished statement kind of format, and
instead give some loose points to open up a discussion. A finished-statement
kind of format makes it look like either you agree with this or you do not.
It does not encourage inputting new independent points, which I wanted to
draw. Neither non-engagement, nor only process related engagement without
also offering some meaningful substantive points is useful at this stage.
So, I am not ready to take the blame for the situation in which caucus
statement is in at present. It is up to the caucus to decide what it wants
to be and what it wants to do. I will offer what help I can, and if it is
anyone's point that I am actually inhibiting any possible outcome, I will
like to be told clearly about it. (Bill, not suggesting that this is your
point.)

> 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.


The earlier active people you speak about own the caucus as much as I do. I
can do only that much to generate responses, rest is to up to those who wish
and care to respond. As for presenting relatively concise statements hitting
the key points - the MAG statement is more or less point wise -  so is
themes statement, and IGF format statement will be made into this form. 3
different statements, I thought organized issues better, and in nay case at
the consultations it is better to make 3 interventions rather than 1. 

And yes you are right if we do not have enough responses we don’t have
caucus statements. But there is no point giving statements that repeat
generic stuff, when we ourselves want IGF to get more purposeful in its
work. It may be better not to give any statement instead. May just make us
sit and sort out how best to organize ourselves to go forward, in the
directions we may want to. 


Parminder 











> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:42 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes
> 
> 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