[governance] Provisional suggestion – on the structure of IGF (meeting)

[Izumi AIZU]

Yes, most of us joined the discussion here yesterday felt that Dynamic
Coalition in general (not all of them) were not successful.

One reason we thought was it was just decentralized and have no link with
the main organizing of IGF back.

That's why we came up to suggest linking it to MAG as organizer of the IGF.

izumi

2011/2/23 Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>:
> In message <AANLkTikVZdRVZAWBOj=BH-c44an9vMCzRnhTRxcRwy3Z at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 19:17:31 on Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes
>>
>> Some of CS members feel that IGF should not be an annual event ending
>> at the last day of its meeting – but rather a continuum process – and
>> we like to see some innovation in this regard.
>
> Wasn't that the role of Dynamic Coalitions? Do you think that concept
> failed, and if so why? What would be different, if a new type of ongoing
> process was introduced?
> --
> Roland Perry
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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