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