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]
wrote:
Hi |