+1<div><br></div><div>I do support the letter as drafted for now, but i agree that <span></span>waiting for concrete information is the smart way to go at this point.</div><div><br></div><div>Izumi <br><br>2013年11月15日金曜日 Carlos A. Afonso <a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca">ca@cafonso.ca</a>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We<br>
do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has<br>
passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might<br>
lead us to make changes in the letter.<br>
<br>
As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you<br>
all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :)<br>
<br>
I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then<br>
send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in<br>
BR. It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through<br>
the press or our lists.<br>
<br>
[]s fraternos<br>
<br>
--c.a.<br>
<br>
On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote:<br>
> I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating<br>
> to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison<br>
> with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose,<br>
> these are our four liaison persons.<br>
><br>
> In fact there is every reason to send the proposed letter to Brazil gov<br>
> *before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed<br>
> meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be<br>
> organised, and so on...<br>
><br>
> If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and<br>
> contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the<br>
> bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away<br>
> (including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and<br>
> are also on the BB list)<br>
><br>
> parminder<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
>> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time<br>
>> now. Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's<br>
>> plans are clear.<br>
>><br>
>> Adam<br>
>><br>
>> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on]<br>
>>><br>
>>> Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled<br>
>>> with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the<br>
>>> liaisons?<br>
>>><br>
>>> If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter,<br>
>>> and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process.<br>
>>><br>
>>> There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to<br>
>>> express among the IGC members who participated in person in the<br>
>>> relevant discussions in Bali.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC<br>
>>> Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online<br>
>>> polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority<br>
>>> of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter,<br>
>>> such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the<br>
>>> coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough<br>
>>> consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if<br>
>>> desired.)<br>
>>><br>
>>> But we should certainly discuss the matter first.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Greetings,<br>
>>> Norbert<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Suresh Ramasubramanian <<a>suresh@hserus.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial<br>
>>>> distinction between the technical community and civil society is<br>
>>>> counterproductive in the long run.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --srs (iPad)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow <<a>nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <<a>jeremy@ciroap.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter<br>
>>>>>>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not<br>
>>>>>>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information<br>
>>>>>>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job<br>
>>>>>>>> here.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that<br>
>>>>>>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to<br>
>>>>>>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go<br>
>>>>>>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of<br>
>>>>>>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into<br>
>>>>>>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that<br>
>>>>>>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If<br></blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br> >> Izumi Aizu <<<br>Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, <br>Japan<br><a href="http://www.anr.org" target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br><br>