[governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition]

[William Drake]

Hi Ian

On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>  
> What you can tell your colleagues off list who are not already aware is that a group of civil society organisations, who in past years have nominated candidates to MAG CSTD etc separately, are working together to try to come up with common candidate slates for things like 1net steering committee, Brazil committees etc. I personally cant tell you the beginnings because I wasn’t there – I joined a little later when I was asked to take up a facilitation role.
>  
> The current members are Best Bits, NCSG, Diplo, APC and IGC – although IGC is perhaps less active given the rather difficult state of its affairs recently. Hopefully this is a temporary situation.

Yes I know about the nomcom, not my question.  I was asking for some friendly clarifications about BB, presumably to the BB steering committee.
>  
> There has been no approach from ISOC to join. As far as I know ISOC organises technical community representation for MAG CSTD etc so probably has a quite different role to perform.

You must be responding to Avri here, I didn’t mention ISOC.
>  
> There has been confusion because some people are talking of a wider civil society coalition emerging (This prompted my questions and those of Carlos as to how this would relate to organisations such as Best Bits IGC etc). Although I have no problems which such an initiative if there is a need for it, I have made it clear that my personal involvement here is purely facilitating co-operation for the selection of common representatives, and any wider organisation establishment is a different process and will need to be facilitated separately. 
>  
> I hope that helps. This is a genuine attempt to get common nominations from civil society groups, and certainly has involvement and support of some of those most active in this field.

I recognize that, and was not asking about it.

> And certainly the nominations and expressions of interest coming forward are from a very wide range of civil society interests who are involved with the above groups and their diverse global networks.
>  
> As regards statements – all of the above organisations, and individuals within them, are likely to make statements on issues that others in this coordination group would not agree with, on this list and on others. There have been no official statements on issues from this group to date and if there are in future they will be clearly identified as such.

Right.

All the best,

Bill
>  
>  
> Ian Peter
>  
> From: William Drake
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 1:35 AM
> To: Governance ; Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition]
>  
> Hi
>  
> On Dec 8, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> If it is networks and not organizations, or organized entities, thanx I do not believe that IGC belongs in the list of enumerated networks.
>> 
>> Especially since almost all the members of the IGC are also in the BB. To me this this looks like double dipping.
>  
> I understand the argument but am not sure which is the second dip.  To my knowledge, BB is a platform that allows orgs and individuals to sign onto statements, it doesn’t have a fixed membership.  So absent a sign on in support, who would the representative of BB on the 1net coordination group or any other collaboration (e.g. the SP committees) actually represent, besides the five BB steering committee members?
>  
> BB is a good initiative with good folks but I just don’t understand its status in this context.   Nor do I understand what its position is on 1net and related, since key participants keep saying rather different things on the lists, some of them in rather ringingly definitive terms like “Civil society believes xyz” (needless to say, the rest of civil society was not asked and may not agree).    I think it’d be helpful if the steering committee would pow wow and come out with a clear statement as to its positions and for whom exactly they are speaking, as the various messages have caused a lot of confusion among other stakeholders on 1net who’ve been asking off list who are these folks and what’s the deal with them, and I have no idea how to respond.
>  
> Best
>  
> Bill
>> 
>> ISOC is a reasonable addition.
>> ~~~
>> avri
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131209/0c6d7067/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t