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] 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] > wrote:
William,

At 2016-06-03 11:13:55 +0200
William Drake < [log in to unmask] > wrote:

On Jun 3, 2016, at 02:06, avri doria < [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] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
www.williamdrake.org
The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections
New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
*************************************************************