[governance] Meeting adjourned

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<AANLkTiknHfhSadSA7ytMeKhqjYE7HtwE9A3O3mpGyawm at mail.gmail.com>, at 
02:05:44 on Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes

>The point we could not agree with is - how to improve IGF - in terms
>of linking IGF to broader dialogue on Internet governance.

Is "broader dialogue" code for "discussions in the ITU", or something 
else?

Broader could mean "more participants involved", or "more topics 
involved". Either [or both] would be quite possible, given what the IGF 
has achieved so far (early days, only five years...)

Do you think the discussion today has benefited from being fully 
multi-stakeholder [the +15 attendees] and from having no observers? Does 
everyone in the room fell they have some ownership of the position at 
the end of the day, or is there a battle-line developing, and if so 
between whom?
-- 
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