<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html><head></head><body><div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"><div>Yes, correct. Speak for yourself and your own organization and please don't presume to speak for all of civil society. </div><div><br></div><div>If the entire goal is to fight with other stakeholders and despite the denial, simply obsess about representation on committees then that is absolutely not the direction civil society should ever take. </div><div><br></div><div>--srs (htc one x) </div><br><div id="htc_header">----- Reply message -----<br>From: "William Drake" <wjdrake@gmail.com><br>To: "Parminder Singh" <parminder@itforchange.net><br>Cc: "Governance" <governance@lists.igcaucus.org>, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca@cafonso.ca>, "Best Bits" <bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><br>Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013<br>Date: Fri, Dec 27, 2013 2:53 PM</div></div><br><pre style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hi
Small corrections please
On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
> Dear Carlos
>
> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now...
>
> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups
Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly.
> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side
from these members of the civil society ‘side’
> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We
These civil society groups
These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen.
Thanks
Bill
> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group.
>
> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting.
>
> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups.
>
> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us.
>
> Thanks and best regards
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
*******************************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
ICANN, <a href="http://www.ncuc.org">www.ncuc.org</a>
william.drake@uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake@gmail.com (lists),
<a href="http://www.williamdrake.org">www.williamdrake.org</a>
********************************************************************
</pre></body></html>