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