<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">I am completely unable to understand delaying
the process of intimating to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS,
will like to have direct liaison with Brazilian gov on the
forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, these are our four
liaison persons.<br>
<br>
In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to
Brazil gov *before* they make any definitive announcement about
the proposed meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in
which it will be organised, and so on...<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">If IGC is to
permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and contradictions,
the world will simply move on without it. On the bestbits list I
saw no opposition to sending this letter right away (including,
quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and are
also on the BB list)</font><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM,
Adam Peake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:08C399D9-7184-466C-A012-E32F08DEAFDD@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's plans are clear.
Adam
On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">[with IGC coordinator hat on]
Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled
with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the
liaisons?
If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter,
and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process.
There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to
express among the IGC members who participated in person in the
relevant discussions in Bali.
The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC
Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online
polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority
of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter,
such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the
coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough
consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if
desired.)
But we should certainly discuss the matter first.
Greetings,
Norbert
Suresh Ramasubramanian <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net"><suresh@hserus.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial
distinction between the technical community and civil society is
counterproductive in the long run.
--srs (iPad)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><nb@bollow.ch></a> wrote:
Jeremy Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org"><jeremy@ciroap.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter
nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not
representatives, for International Civil Society for information
regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job
here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that
global civil society would want to use this mechanism to
coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go
through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of
the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into
I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that
first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If
we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe
our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At
least if they werent invited we could have protested...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Draft letter is here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Looks good to me.
Greetings,
Norbert
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>