[IRP] Punchiness and consultation process
Mon Oct 11 09:29:50 EEST 2010
On Monday 11 October 2010 11:43 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Maybe we could work in parallel - on one side working on the revision
> of version 1.0 in terms of "punchiness", and on the other collecting a
> "queue" of additional matters to be then considered for addition into
> version 2.0, e.g. the more Internet-oriented ones.
> Alternatively, there could be a phase after version 1.1 in which we
> work on a version 1.2, examining submissions to such queue from the
> inside of the coalition, before setting up a fully-fledged
> consultation process with the outside.
I would prefer the second option (that is what I thought I asked for at
the IRP meeting, and in my reading of the transcripts I also see many
others explicitly or implicitly speak of working more on the present
draft in a substantive and not only a light surface manner), inter alia,
because we must appreciate the specific characteristics of the 'larger
consultation' process that we plan to do.
(1) It is likely to be a one time thing, we cannot do it again and again.
(2) these are groups (with which we plan a larger consultation) that may
be a bit on the outside vis a vis IG realm, though very much into social
change, human rights, development etc. This makes it an imperative that
those inside the IG realm provides some kind of leadership and
relatively clear and as importantly, inspiring, directions, over which
these relatively outside groups could work. It is therefore important
that the document should be as complete as possible vis a vis the active
engagement of IG insider groups and individuals before the one time
wider consultation is launched. If we go for the wider consultation with
a document which may be somewhat weak in terms of inspiring people/
groups to add and/or contribute their voice and opinions, we may not
harvest the best we could out of such consultations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IRP