[governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes

[William Drake]

Parminder,


On 2/17/08 6:58 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
 
> It is easy to put some 'regular' stuff in a statement and make it focused
> and get consensus easily. I don¹t see much point in doing it. Which is why

I wasn't suggesting that a caucus statement need be restricted to the
trivial, just that it'd probably be easier to get engagement and consensus
here and an attentive and responsive reception in the consultation by going
with clean and concise statements of preference that don't sound aggrieved.
So for example, rather than saying

"One reason for this low interest in the plenaries was that there were too
many workshops being held at the same time as the plenaries. But equally, or
perhaps more, important reason was that the themes of the plenaries were
just too broad and participants really did not take much away from any of
these sessions. Apart from being too general, and allowing each speaker to
make her own interpretation of the issue, the non-specificity of the issue
under discussion allowed people to often/ mostly speak on areas which were
remote from any implication on global Internet related public policy, which
is the chief purpose of the IGF to discuss. Such diversion or dilution is to
some degree acceptable in case of workshops, in interest of diversity and
openness, but not for the plenaries which represent very precious prime time
for the IGF, and there is only that much of it in a whole year."

We say,

We believe that the Main Sessions [plenaries sounds like a negotiation to
some] would be more compelling and productive if they focused on specific
issues concerning the conduct of Internet governance per se, rather than on
more broadly framed issues pertaining to the Internet environment generally.

Or whatever.  I'm getting ready to head off for the day so I can't
wordsmith, but would you could establish the basic propositions without
needing great elaboration.  The caucus statements will not be the only CS
interventions, so they don't have to fully develop the various arguments one
could make regarding each point.  Put a consensual bullet point on the table
and people can reference and develop it subsequently in accordance with
their own takes on the issue.  We often did it that way to good effect in
the past, the coordinators laid out easily digested menus, statements of 1-1
1/2 pages, and then others drilled down and elaborated on the bits of
particular interest.
> 
> 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. 

I appreciate your intention and effort but think there's evidence that more
complex formulations may not stimulate people to provide the responses you
seek, at least not in a time frame and manner that leads to the rapid
assembling of a statement, so why not try another route and see if it goes
further.

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