[Wg-mwp] WG-MWP: 2018 WG Status Report
6.internet at gmail.com
Tue Nov 6 14:50:43 EST 2018
Thank you. Found the redline word document attached to the mail WG-MWP:
2018 WG Status Report. Sorry, missed the attachment to your mail yesterday.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:14 AM Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> Dear Siva,
> the document we are currently working from was originally shared in a mail
> thread beginning on 30.10.2018 titled: WG-MWP: Webex meeting invitation &
> Draft Agenda - October 30th, 2018 1500 -1600 UTC (not particularly
> helpful). It was reviewed by several members and updated and the current
> draft is one I sent last night in an email thread: WG-MWP: 2018 WG Status
> Report. We had to switch to a word document as some members cannot access
> Google docs from their workplace.
> Apologies if this wasn’t clear, and I very much look forward to your
> thoughts on the current draft.
> > On Nov 6, 2018, at 2:37 PM, sivasubramanian muthusamy <
> 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Lynn
> > Please share the link to the current version of the Status Report
> > if different from
> > as I still see this as a document being edited.
> > Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
> > twitter.com/shivaindia
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:38 AM Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at malcolm.id.au>
> >> On 11/6/18 10:49 AM, GONZALO LOPEZ-BARAJAS HUDER wrote:
> >>> 2- Regarding reference to Synmind in the last section of the paper
> >> Recommendations from this WG, the wording seems also in need of
> >> clarification. Despite the contact with Synmind was made with only a
> few of
> >> the members of the WG, it seems not clear that some members did not
> >> this course of action. I would recommend the following:
> >>> " Some of the WG members proposed for the MAG to explore the
> >> of using a professionally facilitated process in 2019 and and discussed
> >> with Synmind an offer to provide an online/offline facilitated process
> >> the IGF community. The WG did not agree on this proposal."
> >> I am not comfortable with this edit since at this point it is not our
> >> place to agree or disagree with it, but simply to put it before the new
> >> MAG.
> >>> Finally, not specific to the Status Report, regarding Wout's comments I
> >> fully agree in not converting the IGF into a some sort of negotiation or
> >> pseudo treaty body.
> >>> But it is my view that words point to one direction and actions into
> >> some other. The minute we start talking about deliberative polls,
> >> the temperature for consensus building and alike processes this
> >> points to voting. And when there is voting, there are always text
> >> negotiations.
> >> I can assure you that this assumption is simply not true, though. During
> >> my PhD studies I spent three years looking into deliberative democratic
> >> methodologies that do not require text negotiations or voting, yet can
> >> still deliver outputs. Several of these are mentioned in the Annex, and
> >> I would be happy to provide you with some further reading.
> >> --
> >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> >> echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O -
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wg-mwp mailing list
> >> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> >> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
> >> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wg-mwp mailing list
> > Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> > To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
More information about the Wg-mwp