Why do we have IGF?

Milton Müller writes. Unfortunately Milton did misunderstand what I wrote, which probably is because I did not make myself clear.

What I wanted to point out is that the IGF will never be a place where topic specific future looking ideas will be discussed. I do not think it should. We have topic specific conferences for that.

What the IGF is for though, is cooperation, exchange of experiences, and what can help coming with ideas on how to solve the problems and issues that overlap.

For example, take some technical discussions that much better are discussed somewhere else, like in the IETF. There one can probably solve 80% or so of the problem. Without being stuck on the 80% number, my point is that it is not 100%. What is missing (maybe the choices between alternatives) could be discussed much more fruitfully together with others, non-technical people.

The same way, I see as an Internet Technical person that works with policy (not the other way around) that policy people try to solve things to 100% when in reality they also should stop after 80% and ask technical people how to solve the last 20%.

So I am once again I am agreeing with Milton that IGF should move forward, evolve and cover the overlap. Come with ideas on how to solve the overlapping areas, a good discussion area where input to the topic specific forums are discussed. And, I already have seen several cases where people just because of the pure existence of IGF will go to other topic specific conferences they should not have participated at if not IGF would have existed.

The point was in my blog not to say that IGF should only be one way communication. From topic specific conferences and meetings to IGF. It should both be two-way communication and a fora where we can discuss overlapping things. What can be discussed locally will be discussed in local IGF meetings, what can be discussed in topic specific meetings will be discussed there, but what is truly global issues, dependencies, where true global cooperation is needed, that is the IGF.

But one way communication, and pure eduction, nope, that is not my view, and it seems it is not Miltons view either. So once again in a week, I agree with Milton Müller.