I agree with Bill. Your comments Mary were not confusing at all and I think that everyone understood that these were notes of what was discussed rather than decisions reached.

Regards

Konstantinos
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis

Lecturer in IT&T Law, Panellist,
Chair Membership Committee,
Global Internet Governance Academic Network,
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
141 St James Road,
Glasgow G4 0LT.

tel:+44 (0)141 548 4306
fax:+44 (0)141 548 3639
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.law.strath.ac.uk/staff/bio_sharepoint.aspx?id=75

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: 06 November 2008 04:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Cairo minutes responses and discussion points
>
> Hi Mary,
>
> Thanks again for the notes, they were very helpful, in particular to
> those of us who couldn't be in Cairo.  And not to worry, they were
> not confusing with respect to their purpose or your characterizations
> of the 'sense of the room' and such.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 6, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
>
> > Cheryl, thank you for your notes and comments, which I hope will
> > help move our discussions forward. In fairness, however, and for
> > the benefit of those who were not at the meeting or who are new to
> > our group, I feel obliged to clarify certain points, as follows:
> >
> > 1. The minutes are intended to be a factual report on what was
> > actually said and done at the meeting, and not as a memorandum
> > initiating further discussion points. This is why explanations and
> > background/context are not included in the minutes. That is the
> > function of this listserv, your additional comments and Milton's
> > questions.
> >
> > 2. I must emphasize to everyone not present that no votes on any of
> > the substantive issues we are now discussing were taken at the
> > meeting. If I conveyed that impression by using phrases such as
> > "the group agrees", I apologize. That kind of phrase was rather
> > more intended to give the sense (which I feel was accurate) that
> > nobody had any disagreement or objection in principle to that
> > specific point (or at least none were expressed). Where there was
> > disagreement on specific issues, I believe I noted that there was
> > no consensus among those present.
> >
> > 3. Although Harald and Roberto were not speaking "for the Board" (a
> > point that I tried to capture through as accurate a description of
> > each of their comments as possible, which I attributed to the
> > specific speaker), I believe that their visit was, in fact, on the
> > Board's behalf (not in their personal capacities) and as such can
> > fairly and accurately be described as a visit by representatives of
> > the Board. As their comments are, as you noted, very important for
> > us to take into account going forward, I want to make this clear to
> > those who were not present at our meeting.
> >
> > Thanks again for the additional comments, which as I said will help
> > move our discussions forward. I look forward to hearing the views
> > of members on these important questions.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >>>> Cheryl Preston <[log in to unmask]> 11/05/08 11:54 AM >>>
> > Attached are my comments about what was discussed at the Cairo
> > meeting, part I.  I raise several discussion issues.  I will send
> > part II when it is finished.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Cheryl B. Preston
> > Edwin M. Thomas
> > Professor of Law
> > J. Reuben Clark Law School
> > Brigham Young University
> > 434 JRCB
> > Provo, UT 84602
> > (801) 422-2312
> > [log in to unmask]