<html>
<body>
At 11:11 16/11/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote><br>
Carlos,<br><br>
this event is only planned a commercial way to make Brazil a bridge
between BRICS and the statUS-quo using the alibi of the so-called T&A
community. Or to politically divide BRICS in involving Brazil on the US
stakeholder's side. To make it something different rests with you because
it is to be done locally. The need is for the Brazilian FLOSS to join
forces with you and concert an open minded presence in the premises.<br>
jfc<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">If it will work, well, it is
another story.<br><br>
--c.a.<br><br>
------------<br>
C. A. Afonso<br><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>
On 15/11/13 15:18, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I refer to the summit's steering
committee nominated by the BR prez after she met Fadi and announced the
meeting.<br><br>
------------<br>
C. A. Afonso<br><br>
<br><br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: parminder
<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">
<parminder@itforchange.net></a> <br>
Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00) <br>
To:
<a 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 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 href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><nb@bollow.ch></a> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm
<a 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 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 href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">
governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>>>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
>>>>
<a 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 href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>><br><br>
</blockquote><br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message-footer.txt"<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>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>
Translate this email:
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" eudora="autourl">
http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></body>
</html>