Hi

As is evident after a few rounds of discussion, we still have quite different views within our community of this issue, which would probably make it difficult to adopt a unified SG statement unless it were crafted so as to reflect the distinct trajectories of analysis and recommendation.  But we could usefully leverage those differences to demonstrate the expertise and varied views we bring to the table, cartoon characterizations notwithstanding.

My suggestion: before discussing possible endpoints, e.g. a joint statement of our different preferences, we take advantage of the moment and host a discussion in which the two sides make their cases and there is a moderated effort to identify points on which measures of commonality can be built upon and points of true irreconcilability are duly noted and explained.  The process of getting there would be interested and make any next steps that ensue more anticipated and newsworthy event.

We'd talk about doing this as a workshop in Bali, but it seems like that may take too long; who knows what the state of play will be by October.  If we want to discuss this is a manner that will resonate sooner, why not build a session about it into the program of the Beijing workshop?  Actually, drawing in some Chinese perspectives on open/closed might be interesting…

Anyway, I will propose this to the program team and see if folks thing there's a way to fit in in. Our time allotment any how many panels in Beijing remains somewhat fluid but hopefully this will get it sorted and can see about diversifying the program.

I would also add a process suggestion going forward: if people are going to continue to debate the issues online irrespective of what may come next, it would be helpful to us all if we know where everyone's coming is more transparent way.  So if you're views are simply your own state that, but if you are speaking on behalf of a client or organization please say that too, and we'll all have a better handle on what we are reading.


Best

Bill