<div dir="ltr">I agree with Anja.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Anja Kovacs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anja@internetdemocracy.in" target="_blank">anja@internetdemocracy.in</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p>Dear all,</p>
<p>Glad to see the clarification on the role if the committee here. I think ideally, the committee should not have attended the meeting, but should have passed on the invitation to the CS people who participated in the earlier meeting, who could have then passed on the relevant details to all of us, and we could have deliberated on the whether question following that. The CSCG was put into place simply to make nominations for processes we have already agreed that we want to get involved in, and unless otherwise agreed by the wider networks involved in it, should stick to that role in my opinion. </p>
<p>On the actual question of whether we should put forward representatives collectively: I think we should not, as this gives a multistakeholder veneer to a process that isn't (and when I say 'multistakeholder', I think of a process that very clearly adheres to the IG principles outlined in the NETmundial outcome document). It also means that we give legitimacy to the WEF as a venue to unite us all, which I don't want to do. </p>
<p>That doesn't mean, though, that I think civil society shouldn't be part of this. I would be happy for organisations already involved in this, if they are ready, to continue their work, including of informing us all, which I think they have done well and which I have greatly appreciated. </p>
<p>Thanks and best,<br>
Anja</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sep 4, 2014 11:43 PM, "Norbert Bollow" <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:02:42 +0200<br>
Jeanette Hofmann <<a href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu" target="_blank">jeanette@wzb.eu</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> A second point, if the opposition of one member of the the CSCG would<br>
> be enough for the SCSG to do its work, this would lend a very strong<br>
> veto power to single members. In that case we would need a discussion<br>
> of which groups and political positions we want to see represented on<br>
> the SCSG.<br>
<br>
So far CSCG's internal processes have worked reasonably well on the<br>
basis of consensus-based decision-making, by which I mean that not<br>
only will a proposed decision only become a decision in the absence of<br>
objections, but also that everyone works together constructively<br>
towards reaching consensus, i.e. there is an implied social contract of<br>
not abusing the possibility of objecting.<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br>
JNC co-convenor and JNC's representative in CSCG.<br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>