<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>This is a mistake. Brazil wishes a decision-making event, at a minimum capable of meaningful, concrete recommendations, at a mininum to try to set a sort of universal framework of principles for the Internet. Those who wish to reduce it to a re-edition of the IGF toothless dialogues (incidentally, also a UN mistake -- read the 12 items of the IGF mandate in the Tunis Agenda) are in for a surprise.</div><div><br></div><div>If it will work, well, it is another story.</div><div><br></div><div>--c.a.</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:100%">------------<br>C. A. Afonso</div></div> <br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser@cgi.br> <br>Date: 15-11-2013 22:12 (GMT-03:00) <br>To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" <ca@cafonso.ca> <br>Cc: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> <br>Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons <br> <br><br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri">Please avoid the expression SUMMIT. It will be
a Conference ...., a Dialog ..., or </font>an event that clearly
shows a multistakeholder <br>
support. SUMMIT normaly is used for High Level Government Meetings.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Hartmut<br>
<br>
===================================<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/11/13 15:18, Carlos A. Afonso
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:e7tcbsqmsqp52b28jrnl1uah.1384535818364@email.android.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> <br>
Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00) <br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> <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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:suresh@hserus.net"><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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><nb@bollow.ch></a> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org"><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>
>>>>>>>> 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:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps</a><br>
>>>>>> Looks good to me.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Greetings,<br>
>>>>>> Norbert<br>
>>>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> For all other list information and functions,
see:<br>
>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's
charter, see:<br>
>>>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Translate this email:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>