MAG meeting summary report -Re: [governance] open consultations

[McTim]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On 03/03/2009, at 6:21 PM, Parminder wrote:
>>
>>> 2) Another very important development is that concerned dynamic coalition
>>> are likely to be associated from the very start with the development of
>>> round tables. This first time gives DCs an (important) official role in the
>>> IGF process. Significantly, this role is in an area which may soon become
>>> the most important and looked-forward-to part of the IGF.
>>
>>
>> History has shown that there is an inevitable
>
> I don't see anything inevitable in this context. Also, it wasn't because ICC
> that the idea of speed dialogues was dropped, there were more people who
> didn't like this format. I was one of them. Same is true for "debates". I
> wasn't at that meeting but the open consultation's transcript shows that
> preferences for one of the other term run across stakeholder groups. You are
> constructing a "history" here that hasn't shown as much as you claim.


Agreed...In addition, there is no  "larger mandate of coordination of
Internet governance activities."  The mandate is much more subtle than
this sweeping claim.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
____________________________________________________________
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