[governance] Re: ITU IPv6 Event report sought

[CW Mail]

Okay . . . So, who's got the final version?

CW


On 19 Mar 2010, at 04:21, John Curran wrote:

> Eric -
>
> In groups like the ITU, everyone that happens in the meeting is  
> captured in
> "the Meeting Report".  The Report *is* the official output of the  
> meeting, and
> parties often negotiate over its content on a sentence-by-sentence  
> basis (I'm
> not saying this is either good or bad practice, just pointing out  
> how its done
> for these forums).  The final Report is published as the only output  
> of the
> meeting, and intermediate/working drafts seen in the closed meeting  
> are
> discarded.
>
> This weeks ITU's IPv6 Forum was no different, and the document which  
> has
> been circulating is the initial Tuesday 2pm draft of the meeting  
> report from the
> Chair.  There was nearly four hours of interventions over the  
> content which
> followed, and so the final document is likely to be materially  
> different in some
> areas.   My point is simply that releasing the initial Chairman's  
> draft of the
> meeting report isn't the ITU practice, anymore than allowing open,  
> public
> participation.
>
> /John
>
> p.s.  (My particular preference is for fully-open meetings, and  
> actual minutes
>          over negotiated meeting reports).
>
> On Mar 18, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>> I am not reading this right.  Do you mean that "it is for this  
>> reason more reports and drafts should be made public" ?
>>
>> Or are you saying we should not know about such things because the  
>> vast majority of the public is too stupid.?
>>
>> Or are you saying this made people have to explain themselves and  
>> that is bad?
>>
>> Or that no one on the "outside" should know what goes on on the  
>> "inside"?
>>
>> (hopefully explaining this is not tooo much trouble)
>> --- On Thu, 3/18/10, John Curran
>> So, a reading of it gives a sense of the meeting, it's important not
>> to rely on it regarding an specific text.  For example, the charter
>> of correspondence study group two was a topic of discussion for
>> more than an hour, and will a barely recognizable derivative of
>> what's presently shown.  It's for this reason that draft documents
>> like these are generally not published outside of the study group
>> members.
>>
>> FYI,
>> /John
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100319/29093e4f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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