<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 Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:24 PM,
Deirdre Williams wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Dear Parminder,</p>
<p dir="ltr">You ask for my opinion.<br>
I think that there are two discussions here, and they are
becoming confused. <br>
One is about the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), an assessment of
its value if any, and of the dangers it might represent.<br>
The other is whether civil society should engage itself in the
NMI process.<br>
Engaging in the process has nothing necessarily to do with
approval of NMI. The response of some people is "have nothing to
do with it", others prefer to retain a voice in the proceedings.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Deirdre<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">As for IGC -<br>
I have no legal training and cannot speak to "legality". My
feeling is </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
As office holders of the IGC, you cannot say that you cannot infer
from or interpret the rules of the caucus and you just speak from
your feelings... You need to speak and act from your interpretations
of the rules laid out in the IGC charter, which interpretation
itself of course is subject to further due process. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">that the time to complain about a process is at the
beginning, rather than when it has reached a conclusion.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I completely fail to understand what you mean here... Cocos sought
feedback on IGC's participation in the NMI. Many including myself
gave feedback. Cocos are entirely within their right to seek any
kind of feedback... Why and how can I object to that. Obtaining
feedback does not automatically lead to conclusion of an IGC
decision, unless of course co cos can consider it a consensus
decision, which I am sure you are not calling it. Are you? <br>
<br>
Relevant section from the <a href="http://igcaucus.org/charter">Charter</a><br>
<br>
"The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible.
When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be
jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the
purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an
overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position
with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and
respected. Rough consensus can only be called after a serious
attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view.<br>
When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough
consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the
consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty
eight (48) hours of final discussion."<br>
<br>
Have you not read this, or do you deliberately refuse to follow the
due process? <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> The Charter seems to me to give co - coordinators
space to deal with matters that are very urgent. </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, the charter gives you no such cover in the matter and contexts
like the one involving IGC joining the NMI (first, this is not
making an on the spot statement, second you have had weeks to seek
this decision in a legal manner). You are passers trying to take the
shelter of the below provision which, it is patent, simply does not
apply. <br>
<br>
"Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be
discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision
procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be
occasions <i><b>when members of the caucus will be attending
meetings and will be presented with the opportunity to make
statements</b></i> that <i><b>require a very quick response</b></i>.
In these cases, while it is still required that the caucus be
informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as soon as
possible the following rule may be applied when necessary."
(emphasis added)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">The important thing is that there should be
transparency and consultation.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
The important thing is to maintain the letter and spirit of the
rules of the group of which you have been chosen as an office
bearer. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> In this case there were both - transparency and
consultation - and the consensus coming out of this is that IGC
as a group prefers to keep the line of communication open.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Consensus!!?? Are you declaring a consensus of view inside the IGC
to go with the NMI .. Please make it clear, the term consensus has a
clear meaning implied in the IGC rules. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> Mawaki has worked very hard on this as the IGC
representative on CSCG, and deserves our thanks.</p>
<p dir="ltr">There is another place where the discussion is
confused. The CSCG is an appropriate context for discussion of
whether or not civil society should join with NMI,</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, I am not confused. This is the place for the IGC to decide
whether it will like to join the NMI or not (one of the most
important CS decisions and one of the most divisive one in a long
time) and accordingly what would its rep communicate to the CSCG.
CSCG just compiles views, seeks clarifications etc, and acts
accordingly. It was specifically made clear through interventions of
many members during the last round of NMI related discussions in
Aug-Sept that CSG has no such role of discussing such things by
itself and deciding them (something which is clear in the formative
documents of the CSCG, which should be known to all, and certainly
to IGC's cocos.) <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> but absent at least a rough consensus, and present
such widely opposed views,</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Deirdre, I am not sure I understand you... You seem to suggest that
there is some kind of consensus inside the IGC to join up with NMI
but an absence of even a rough consensus overall in civil society
to join in. But I saw at least as many dissenting views inside the
IGC as outside in this matter, and so i am just not clear what you
are saying here. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"> my own feeling is that, unless things change, the
CSCG should now withdraw from the selection process.</p>
</blockquote>
Feelings do not matter much I think, what Mawaki and you communicate
to the CSCG does. (BTW, can you please share what precisely was
communicated on IGC's behalf to the CSCG, as an IGC member I need to
know).... As you would have seen from Ian's email, despite your
feeling, but presumably based on IGC coco's communication to him, he
has announced a process to cooperating with WEF's NMI to select
civil society nominations. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">However the situation is changing very rapidly, and
the nature of NMI is changing with it.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I hope very much that at the end of the day we won't
find that we have thrown out the IGC baby in the NMI bathwater.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
A considerable harm would have been done to the no doubt already
sick IGC baby if co-cos go ahead with their illegal act and an
illegal communication of what has been presented as a decision of
the IGC. I myself very much hope we will be spared such grave harm
to the IGC.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMz5XN6HhjAKy-W2KsPfsk48Dk4rPePh+-bre1MtL4ny8x-i1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Deirdre</p>
<p dir="ltr">On 25 Nov 2014 09:01, "parminder" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Mawaki<br>
><br>
> I am sure that you know that there is a method listed in
the IGC charter to take collective decisions, and the method you
are following is nowhere close to that..<br>
><br>
> In the circumstances, any correspondence you will make on
IGC;s behalf as representing an IGC decision on this issue will
be illegal.<br>
><br>
> parminder <br>
><br>
> PS: Apart from the fact that you are simply not authorised
to make a decision on IGC's behalf, especially on such a
contested matter as the implicated one, the various
'considerations' and 'notings' that you base your 'decision' on
our either faulty or heavily contested, and you surely know
that. <br>
><br>
> Interestingly, you have spoken of the need to take forward
to evolve and improve some sections of the Sao Paolo NM
declaration, whereas a lot of civil society supporters of the
new NMI as well its promoters inside WEF are insisting that the
*new NMI is not at all a normative venue but is bacially a
platform for project based cooperation*. Now, with such a
faulty, or atleast contested, interpretation of the central
purpose of the new NMI, how can you reach a decision on the
IGC's behalf.<br>
><br>
> This is just one of the faulty/ contested considerations
that you have relied on, and there are many others that I can
refer to. <br>
><br>
> In the circumstances, please withdraw your ' decision'.
Also for Deirdre's comments. Please let us know what you think
of the legality of this 'decision'. <br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tuesday 25 November 2014 02:56 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Dear All,<br>
>><br>
>> I have listened to your views, to your fears and
concerns as well as to your hopes and support. This one is
really difficult a decision, probably the most difficult IGC
decision I will have to be involved in before the expiration of
my term.<br>
>><br>
>> Taking into consideration all the responses, comments,
explanations, positions and advice received on the IGC list in
response to this call, whether under this email thread or in a
different one since this call has been posted;<br>
>><br>
>> Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has
also already expressed herself on this question;<br>
>><br>
>> Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest
ones expressed here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the
presence or participation of the WEF as such in the NMI than to
anything else;<br>
>><br>
>> Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking
from the WEF;<br>
>><br>
>> Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be
diametrically opposed to, or at least is different from, the
open, transparent, bottom-up and consensus-seeking mode of
operation that we value as civil society in the IG field and
which ICG,br and IGC agree to promote and uphold in carrying
forward the legacy of NETmundial2014;<br>
>><br>
>> Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in
global governance may be at odds with the goals of civil
society, and as a result there are most likely many questions on
which civil society and WEF may not agree on in one increasingly
prominent area of global governance to date (i.e, the internet
governance area);<br>
>><br>
>> Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be
open to all stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long
as they accept to live up to that openness and the other basic
rules of operation mentioned above from the CS standpoint,
without the pre-requisite of agreeing with each others on their
worldview or even on a set of core substantive issues;<br>
>><br>
>> Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of
something that still needs to be shaped and can be shaped as
have shown so far the amendments that have been made by its
proponents to their original plans after CS feedback and
criticism;<br>
>><br>
>> Understanding that those amendments may have been made
in order to lure CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any
type of outcome on the long run unless CS remains vigilant and
keeps fighting for the outcomes it wishes for or supports;<br>
>><br>
>> Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not
perfect and thus _at least_ some sections of CS do not consider
it as final in the sense that some of its provisions may still
need to evolve and be improved, but that would be better
achieved through the continuous collaborative work of the
various stakeholders rather than by fiat from one stakeholder
(group);<br>
>><br>
>> Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not
lending legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has
already gained some legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its
co-founders and will further gain legitimacy by having a
delegate of the IGF-MAG join the NMI's Coordination Council
(assuming its current design is implemented)*;<br>
>><br>
>> I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process
by participating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil
society nominees to the NMI Coordination Council. <br>
>> On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support
the idea that the CSCG assorts the CS participation with a
number of conditions that will be meant to make sure the
continuous participation of the CS and its appointees is subject
to being accountable to their constituents. <br>
>><br>
>> CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that
is, the acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI.<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you for your participation in this consultation.<br>
>> Best regards,<br>
>><br>
>> Mawaki<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> (*) Excerpt from the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.netmundial.org/">https://www.netmundial.org/</a><br>
>> The Coordination Council will have a total of 25
individual members: 20 distributed across four sectors and five
geographies, and additional seats (one each) for the
organizational founders CGI.br and ICANN; one for the World
Economic Forum in its role of supporter of the Initiative; as
well as one seat each for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory
Group (MAG) and the technical community (I* group).<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>