Hi,
I do not mind being shot as a messenger. Always expect it.
Though I am wondering who you are referring to with 'you' in your message.
Remember it is a DESA affair: not part of the IGF, just about the IGF.
The MAG has little to do with it except for ask questions.
BTW, the discussion of recording had to do with of the MAG calls. I
have heard no discussion about recording the retreat. Fortunately you
will have the opportunity to send DESA your message when they ask for
contributions.
avri
On 03-Jun-16 08:04, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Thanks for providing this update, Avri.
>
> I don't want to shoot the messenger, but like Seun I find the comment
> about the recordings not to be a very compelling one.
>
> I have no issue with a retreat that brings together the right people,
> at the right time, for the right reasons, with the right process. I
> see this as an opportunity for the IGF to take stock, build the
> strategic muscle needed to see the IGF in new and refreshed ways, and
> to give a turbo boost to certain matters that need attention.
>
> I have been silent on this issue for the past fortnight because I
> believe that extraneous participation benefits no one. If people don’t
> have a vested interest in the process, don’t have the knowledge to
> contribute, and there’s no need to build their buy-in, it may not be
> useful for them to attend the retreat, online or in person.
>
> However, there is no reason for activities that will lead to meaty
> discussions and, in turn, outcomes that will impact people outside of
> the room, to not be recorded. There should be full transcripts made
> available of all conversations facilitated by the organisers. I also
> oppose the use of the Chatham House rule at the retreat — if your idea
> is so great, say it on the record and attribute it to your name and/or
> organisation. You are being entrusted to shape the future direction of
> the IGF for the next 10 years, so there should be a full and accurate
> record of events so we can look back, check in every year, and keep
> your work alive.
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> Ayden
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 12:31 PM, William Drake [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks Shane. I’m familiar with the rule. We don’t use it in the
> IGF, for various reasons, at least not since the early tense days
> of the MAG.
>
> Bill
>
>
>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 12:13, Shane Kerr <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> William,
>>
>> At 2016-06-03 11:13:55 +0200
>> William Drake <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jun 3, 2016, at 02:06, avri doria <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chatham House style (content w/o attribution)
>>>
>>> In true bottom up transparent community driven IGF fashion….not.
>>
>> To be honest, that doesn't seem too horrible. The Chatham House
>> rule is
>> there for a reason:
>>
>> Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
>>
>> A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views
>> that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it
>> encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if
>> they don't have to worry about their reputation or the
>> implications
>> if they are publicly quoted.
>>
>> https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Shane - speaking only for myself ;)
>
>
> *************************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> /The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th
> Anniversary Reflections/
> New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
> *************************************************************
>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
