[governance] from the MAG meeting

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, to make it more concrete: Right now, there are three topics for a 
session on critical internet resources on the table: IPv4/IPv6, Internet 
Governance arrangements (to be filled with concrete issues, the pending 
end of the JPA has been mentioned) and spectrum allocation.

jeanette

Garth Graham wrote:
> To be "Internet-like" the process that identifies the "right" threads 
> needs to be emergent ... something where the threads survive an extended 
> process of open negotiation, distributed collaboration and iterative 
> refinement.  IGF's agenda should be a slice-in-time reflection of that 
> process and/or dialogue  - and NOT a classificatory and hierarchical 
> process.  And any true "specialist," inside governments or out, will 
> have a known reputation based on the quality of participation (i.e. they 
> will be living inside communities of interest and practice).  In this 
> case, a "centre" really will not hold.
> 
> .... and, as I re-state something that seems to me to be simple, obvious 
> and familiar, it occurs to me that I don't really get the question ... 
> and should therefore keep my mouth shut!
> GG
> 
> On 15-May-08, at 1:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> If you want to make progress in specific areas they have to be solid 
>> enough
>> for governments to justify sending specialists. Then progress might be 
>> made.
>> If you keep generalizing they will send generalists who will write nice
>> reports. We are not attracting heads of state so we need to have 
>> something
>> specific enough for key public servants to attend.
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>> Sent: 15 May 2008 18:44
>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] from the MAG meeting
>>>
>>> There is a tendency towards "threadening" of main session and workshop
>>> topics. But there is also a continuous drive towards intersecting or
>>> merging of major themes such as access and capacity building or
>>> security, privacy and openness under new headers. So, it seems the MAG
>>> is aware of the pros and con of both approaches.
____________________________________________________________
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