[governance] open consultations and MAG meeting

[Meryem Marzouki]

Hi Parminder and all,

Thanks for this feedback. I've some questions, however:

Le 1 mars 09 à 12:11, Parminder a écrit :

> Review of IGF Hyderabad indicated a strong desire among the  
> participants that the IGF should now move on from being an IGF 101,  
> or a IGF for dummies, and deal with more clearly substantive  
> issues, with some possibilities of moving forward on them. This  
> directly connects to the sentiment that was prevalent in the  
> closing session of IGF Hyderabad. it appears that there is general  
> agreement to take some issues that have greater level of agreement  
> to 'round tables' for possible recommendation making. Two issues  
> that seem to be headed in this direction are (1) child protection  
> and (2) disability related access issues (these were mentioned in  
> the open consultation but the proposal was developed further in the  
> MAG meeting). However the final decision on either the round table  
> format or the issues to be taken up has not been taken, and this  
> will decided by the re-constituted MAG in May. However, it is this  
> new format that mostly likely will mark the next IGF meeting.

What does a 'greater level of agreement' exactly mean? Among whom?  
The 3-6 people who participated in 2-3 workshops on a given theme?
How is this agreement measured? Is there at least any synthesis of  
the discussions that could show such an agreement (or disagreement)  
on a given issue?
Furthermore, agreement on what, exactly? On the fact that children  
should be protected, or that access should take into account people  
with disabilities? Who could be against that?

Yes, my questions are purely rhetorical. But here is a true one: how  
it comes that a 'sentiment' (whose sentiment, BTW?) is used, in such  
an arena, to affirm that an issue has reached any agreement? There is  
a missing step here, which is that a synthesis of discussions should  
be produced on a given issue, providing the results on how it should  
be addressed, then that this synthesis be opened to comments and  
suggestions, and only then we could identify whether or not there is  
an agreement, an on what.

Let's, at least, take this IGF 'conversation' from an oral informal  
conversation expressing sentiments to a written conversation relying  
on (accountable) arguments..

Best,
Meryem____________________________________________________________
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