<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>I refer to the summit's steering committee nominated by the BR prez after she met Fadi and announced the meeting.</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:100%">------------<br>C. A. Afonso</div></div> <br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> <br>Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00) <br>To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org <br>Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons <br> <br><br><br>On Friday 15 November 2013 04:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>> 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.<br><br>Sorry, Carlos, did not understand which steering committee you refer to <br>here. If it is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, sure we can <br>send letter to both Brazilian gov and the Steering Committee.<br><br>I still think we should send a letter to them right away with just the <br>names of our 4 Brazilian liaisons .... I have a feeling that they <br>(Brazilians) do not fully realise the feeling among the civil society <br>for a direct liaison with Brazilian hosts, and not through the so called <br>coalition of non gov stakeholders being presented.... Unless of course <br>you know of something that I dont know, which is quite likely..<br><br>parminder<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 <suresh@hserus.net> 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 <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy@ciroap.org> 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>>>>>>>>> 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>>>>>>>>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe<br>>>>>>>>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At<br>>>>>>>>> least if they werent invited we could have protested...<br>>>>>>>> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps<br>>>>>>> Looks good to me.<br>>>>>>><br>>>>>>> Greetings,<br>>>>>>> Norbert<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></body>