NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (1.0)
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
William Drake <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:15:41 +0100
Reply-To:
"Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
Also, I do not think Icann has the power to call the i* off, nor to set the agenda.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 06/11/2013, at 08:16, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2013, at 4:07 AM, McTim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I dont even think there are preliminary agenda makers yet.
>>> i think they are still at a meta stage trying to figure out who the preliminary agenda makers should be.
>> 
>> true, but in the recent call with Fadi and GNSO, Fadi said:
>> 
>> "So for example, some people are saying, "Oh, this will be all about
>> surveillance." It won't be. And I already told them that if we even
>> come close to the surveillance issue, we will pull out immediately,
>> all of us. This is not about surveillance. This is not a conference
>> that should come out with proposals to solve any particular problems.
>> This is a conference that should focus on high-level principles and,
>> as you said, these have been floating a lot of us, a lot of you have
>> done a lot of work on this that's just putting things together for
>> that, and should focus on an institutional framework.”
> 
> I was surprised by this response…perhaps a need to recalibrate a bit on language.  I understand the perceived need to assuage fretful business folks, but announcing bright red lines seems off.   This is supposed to be a partnership, with the agenda to be worked out collaboratively and inclusively.  
> 
> Bill

ATOM RSS1 RSS2