[governance] Suggestions for Delhi - themes

[Parminder]

 Bill

> 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

Yes, as I said now I am going to write out shorter statements, since the
arguments and justifications are already out there. These will be open to
comment - additions, deletions etc for about 3 days or so, and then towards
the end of the week we will put them out for consensus call.

There will be two statements - one on MAG renewal, and another on IGF format
and main session themes for Delhi. I have suggestions/ text for only two
themes, so more are welcome.

Parminder

PS: Bill, I noticed that in my earlier email I inadvertently
mischaracterized something you said generally about the IGF workshop at
ICANN Delhi meet, as something specifically referring to one panelist's
comments. I apologize for it. 



> 
> "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


____________________________________________________________
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