<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Hi </div><div><br></div><div>My impression is that the two of them, Brazil and ICANN, are the ones informing the world of something they are initiating together.</div><div><br></div><div>Similar to situations where, .e.g. the ITU and the UAE put a meeting together. </div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">avri</div><div style="font-size:75%"><br></div><div style="font-size:75%">Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div><br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: michael gurstein <gurstein@gmail.com> <br>Date: 10/12/2013 19:58 (GMT-05:00) <br>To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,'Avri Doria' <avri@ella.com> <br>Subject: RE: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) <br> <br><br>Avri,<br><br>The announcement/invitation to which we replied was issued by Ms.<br>Rousseff/Brazil. A cc: to Chehahde/ICANN acknowledges their contribution<br>involvement as per the body of the note. Are you making some<br>other/political point as per your note below and if so, perhaps you could be<br>explicit about it?<br><br>M<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org<br>[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:52 AM<br>To: IGC<br>Subject: Re: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re:<br>Draft letter text)<br><br>Hi,<br><br>I wasn't thinking of a carbon copy being sent to him. I was speaking about<br>addressing it to the pair of them equally as the senior members of their<br>respective stakeholder groups.<br><br>Ie. To the venerable ... and the most excellent ... (or whatever the<br>appropriate honorifics might be for this occasion). I do not have a view as<br>to which protocol would require putting first in the list of honorifics.<br><br>avri<br><br>On 12 Oct 2013, at 13:58, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:<br><br>> FWIW: I would CC Fadi. It cannot hurt, and might help.<br>> <br>> On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:<br>> <br>>> Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:<br>>> <br>>>> If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders <br>>>> who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi <br>>>> stakeholder push while petitioning for CS to be included? Shouldn't <br>>>> we be addressing our thoughts to both of them.<br>>>> <br>>>> On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to <br>>>> wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so <br>>>> against sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its <br>>>> signature to an appropriately addressed note.<br>>> <br>>> I don't see anything inappropriate about addressing this note to the <br>>> Brazilian government.<br>>> <br>>> If CS doesn't get included, it wouldn't be the fault of Fadi or of <br>>> anyone else at ICANN. ICANN is not in the habit of excluding <br>>> stakeholders, but governments have that habit. It would be the fault <br>>> of some government bureaucrat(s) either acting on (bad) habit, or <br>>> acting out of an unhealthy relationship with telecom companies that <br>>> still have a pre-Internet mindset, or acting of of such a <br>>> pre-Internet telecom mindset they may have themselves.<br>>> <br>>> So it is in my view quite appropriate to communicate to the person <br>>> who is able to solve this problem by simply telling her bureaucrats <br>>> to work with civil society.<br>>> <br>>> I don't like the idea of adding Fadi to the list of addressees for <br>>> this particular letter, because doing so would reduce the clarity <br>>> about who needs to take the necessary action to ensure the inclusion <br>>> of civil society.<br>>> <br>>> I do however agree on the point that there is an imbalance if we <br>>> express appreciation only for the Brazilian president and government <br>>> but not for the (at least in my view) at least equally significant <br>>> contribution of Fadi.<br>>> <br>>> How about addressing a separate note to Fadi which simply expresses <br>>> appreciation?<br>>> <br>>> If we want to take that route, it might be best to combine the <br>>> endorsements / sign-on process for both letters, making it a package <br>>> deal, i.e. each person or organization would either endorse both or <br>>> none of the two letters.<br>>> <br>>> Thoughts?<br>>> <br>>> Greetings,<br>>> Norbert<br>>> <br>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br>>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<br>>> <br>>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<br>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/<br>>> <br>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br>> <br><br><br><br></body>