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