<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 12 January 2014 07:07 PM,
Ginger Paque wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALCecM8EL41jhbhduMp2_5v2_q2PC1OeRsQZ=J2SJSfChq8bWQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Two things Bill said really resonated with me:\</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALCecM8EL41jhbhduMp2_5v2_q2PC1OeRsQZ=J2SJSfChq8bWQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
--'Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same
as agreeing'<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Ginger,<br>
<br>
This is misleading.... The issue of civil society taking an active
direct role in Brazil meeting was discussed for a long time of IGC
and BB lists before and after Bali... And no one objecting to the
what looked like emerging consensus that civil society should be
there directly, in an active role... But fine, I am ready for people
to re-decide on this issue. But dont take it to be a non important
issue. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALCecM8EL41jhbhduMp2_5v2_q2PC1OeRsQZ=J2SJSfChq8bWQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
--'BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about
here is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of
infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive
inputs on the meeting agenda items.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
IF it is as you say as above..<br>
<br>
1. Why is 1Net, or someone on 1Net's behalf, so insistent to take
the single conduit role... (Going to the extent to getting reversed
an earlier decision of LOG announced late Dec by Carlos on this
list). Let its leave it as so many in CS want it to.... As Is should
should the burden of giving way be always on the CS...<br>
<br>
2. No, it is not just about 2 conference committee... it is going to
be about participant lists (as per current info, the meeting is by
invitation), and most importantly it is to be about substantive
inputs and framing final outcomes, which is the big game (and
perhaps a lot of other meeting related things) ............ Can
civil society also sometime be strategic! <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALCecM8EL41jhbhduMp2_5v2_q2PC1OeRsQZ=J2SJSfChq8bWQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>Ginger says:<br>
</div>
<div>Someone else said something like--'not everyone was in
Bali'...<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Adam and others have shown great common sense, saying in
that it is time to work constructively and move on.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Now that we know what the two main themes are going to be,
we can start work on substantial input, so our
representatives have something to take to the table.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALCecM8EL41jhbhduMp2_5v2_q2PC1OeRsQZ=J2SJSfChq8bWQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,<br>
</div>
<div>Ginger<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
It seems, as others.'<font size="4"><br>
<br>
</font></div>
<font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 12 January 2014 04:31, William Drake
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" target="_blank">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi Norbert
<div><br>
<div>
<div class="im">
<div>On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">William Drake <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" target="_blank">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57
PM, parminder <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Friday 10 January
2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">However, before the
message that the meeting would now be an<br>
LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless
respond to that request.<br>
As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the
liaisons) have<br>
insisted on dealing directly with the LOC,<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net
coordinator to facilitate<br>
our participation when we expressly decided
against it..<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
For the third time in two days on three lists I
find myself in<br>
agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause
for concern to us<br>
both :-)<br>
<br>
Could someone please remind me which are the 4
networks that insist<br>
on dealing directly with the LOC<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which
is available online<br>
at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/"
target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/</a>
is signed as follows:<br>
<br>
Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:steering@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">steering@lists.bestbits.net</a>)<br>
IRP Coalition (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:info@irpcharter.org"
target="_blank">info@irpcharter.org</a>)<br>
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow,
coordinators of the<br>
Internet Governance Caucus (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:coordinators@igcaucus.org"
target="_blank">coordinators@igcaucus.org</a>)<br>
Association for Progressive Communications – APC (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
Thanks
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
In case anyone cares about what the formal status
of this matter might<br>
be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is
not among the<br>
signatories of this letter, and it is not a
statement of IGC, as IGC<br>
has not formally endorsed it. </blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
Thank you for clarifying this.</div>
<div>
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
The two people who were at the time the<br>
co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the
contents of the letter<br>
certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus
of the people who met<br>
in person in civil society meetings to discuss
these matters,</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
Per previous, I and others disagree with this
characterization. Not wanting to be party to more
shouting is not the same as agreeing, or expecting
that what the people who happened to be in that room
said permanently committed the networks of which
they’re members to a position that could not be
reviewed and agreed by others later. As you yourself
say, IGC did not formally endorse the position, and
yet it has been routinely asserted since that this is
IGC’s position.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or
the other of the positions of IGC and BB and there’s
been little response. Maybe people don’t want to be
party to more heated exchanges that won’t lead to
rough consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either
way, whatever. While this floats unresolved, the
LOG’s deadlines for the provision of names get closer.
And as Hartmut said yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard
Glaser <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:glaser@cgi.br" target="_blank">glaser@cgi.br</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote type="cite">So for the HLC, business,
technical, CS and academia should each submit 3
names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks
from now. <br>
</blockquote>
<b><big>Correct ...</big></b><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">So for the EMC, business,
technical, CS and academia should each submit 2
names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday.</blockquote>
<big><b>Correct ...</b></big></div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><big><b><br>
</b></big></div>
</div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><big><font
size="4">If in fact any of the 4 networks still
do not want to submit names through the 1Net SC,
while other networks are doing just that, then
they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the
position of deciding which nominations to accept
from whom via which channels. The LOG clearly
does not want to be in that position, which is
why they asked people to sort this out and
submit through the </font></big><font size="4">1Net
SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces
compelling them). At some point, someone has to
decide who’s on the 2 committees. Either it’s the
LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the
networks don’t have representation, or it’s
the 1Net SC, on which most of them do. </font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font size="4">And
if it’s</font><span style="font-size:large"> </span><font
size="4">the 1Net SC, there’s the further problem
of does it just pass on names from those networks,
in which case other nets feel may say they’ve been
excluded, or does it have to select among
competing nets' nominations, in which case it’ll
be accused of abusing authority nobody granted it
(see threads on BB and 1Net). The 1Net SC should
not be put in this position, either.</font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font size="4">We’ve
done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s
ticking down. Either we sort this out of
we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck. </font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font size="4">BTW
it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking
about here is who is on these two conference
committees, a matter of </font>infinitesimally
less importance than formulating substantive inputs
on the meeting agenda items.<font size="4"> </font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font size="4">Bill</font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="4"><br>
</font></div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>