I agree with Bill. Your comments Mary were not confusing at all and I think that everyone understood that these were notes of what was discussed rather than decisions reached. Regards Konstantinos Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis Lecturer in IT&T Law, Panellist, Chair Membership Committee, Global Internet Governance Academic Network, University of Strathclyde, The Law School, 141 St James Road, Glasgow G4 0LT. tel:+44 (0)141 548 4306 fax:+44 (0)141 548 3639 email: [log in to unmask] http://www.law.strath.ac.uk/staff/bio_sharepoint.aspx?id=75 > -----Original Message----- > From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: 06 November 2008 04:44 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Cairo minutes responses and discussion points > > Hi Mary, > > Thanks again for the notes, they were very helpful, in particular to > those of us who couldn't be in Cairo. And not to worry, they were > not confusing with respect to their purpose or your characterizations > of the 'sense of the room' and such. > > Best, > > Bill > > On Nov 6, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Mary Wong wrote: > > > Cheryl, thank you for your notes and comments, which I hope will > > help move our discussions forward. In fairness, however, and for > > the benefit of those who were not at the meeting or who are new to > > our group, I feel obliged to clarify certain points, as follows: > > > > 1. The minutes are intended to be a factual report on what was > > actually said and done at the meeting, and not as a memorandum > > initiating further discussion points. This is why explanations and > > background/context are not included in the minutes. That is the > > function of this listserv, your additional comments and Milton's > > questions. > > > > 2. I must emphasize to everyone not present that no votes on any of > > the substantive issues we are now discussing were taken at the > > meeting. If I conveyed that impression by using phrases such as > > "the group agrees", I apologize. That kind of phrase was rather > > more intended to give the sense (which I feel was accurate) that > > nobody had any disagreement or objection in principle to that > > specific point (or at least none were expressed). Where there was > > disagreement on specific issues, I believe I noted that there was > > no consensus among those present. > > > > 3. Although Harald and Roberto were not speaking "for the Board" (a > > point that I tried to capture through as accurate a description of > > each of their comments as possible, which I attributed to the > > specific speaker), I believe that their visit was, in fact, on the > > Board's behalf (not in their personal capacities) and as such can > > fairly and accurately be described as a visit by representatives of > > the Board. As their comments are, as you noted, very important for > > us to take into account going forward, I want to make this clear to > > those who were not present at our meeting. > > > > Thanks again for the additional comments, which as I said will help > > move our discussions forward. I look forward to hearing the views > > of members on these important questions. > > > > Cheers > > Mary > > > > > >>>> Cheryl Preston <[log in to unmask]> 11/05/08 11:54 AM >>> > > Attached are my comments about what was discussed at the Cairo > > meeting, part I. I raise several discussion issues. I will send > > part II when it is finished. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Cheryl B. Preston > > Edwin M. Thomas > > Professor of Law > > J. Reuben Clark Law School > > Brigham Young University > > 434 JRCB > > Provo, UT 84602 > > (801) 422-2312 > > [log in to unmask]