[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[McTim]

Bill,

Thanks for weighing in on this...

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:02 PM, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> McTim, et al,

<snip>

> Those of us who are interested in this can and should debate the options further, the point here is that it doesn't make sense for you to fix on one way of thinking about the whole terrain and on that basis say no, bad idea.
>

I'm not saying it was a bad idea, I just tried to put it in a
formulation that has a chance of being accepted.  I'm all for talking
about development in the IGF.

> What I would suggest is that the IGC adopt a text advocating a more broadly framed main session on IG4D—what if anything does the term mean, what are the linkages between global IG and development with respect to core resources and other issue areas, how might one take the conversation forward.  In that context, the DA concept can be mentioned as a way of moving beyond identifying links toward doing something, with what that something may be posed as a point on which there are various perspectives.  This would hopefully avoid arousing undue concerns that would prevent the core concept of IG4D getting a hearing, without precluding the possibility of exploring DA visions in that broader context.

Do you have a para on that? Do we need something today or for February?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t