Call for contributions for the retreat:

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-2016-call



On 03-Jun-16 17:44, avri doria wrote:
> 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
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus