Also, I do not think Icann has the power to call the i* off, nor to set the agenda. sent from a dumbphone > On 06/11/2013, at 08:16, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> 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