[bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

Fri Dec 27 09:41:49 EST 2013

Ok, Bill,  There was  a category confusion here. Since we were/ are 
interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS groups' 
here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually incorrect to 
say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say it is IGC plus 
BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected.

(Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew 
exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate 
accordingly...)

In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition 
to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do 
they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction 
that they did not want them to go..

parminder

On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote:
>
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Small corrections please
>>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>> <mailto:parminder at 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.
>>
>> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - 
>> IGC, BB, IRP and APC -  which was sent in a written form to the 
>> Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand 
>> that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken..
>
> Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the 
> same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s 
> not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. 
>  IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not?  I don’t 
> recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. 
>  Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 
> organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various 
> other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG.  So you really are 
> not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on 
> behalf of all global civil society.  And FWIW, as both a founding IGC 
> member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and 
> inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of 
> the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe 
> we’re still debating).  What I do remember is a few loud and 
> aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting 
> to tangle.  I also remember the very same people who denounced using 
> 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then 
> demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a 
> pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence.
>
> Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that 
> on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the 
> manner the Brazilians have asked for.  Then simply say who you are, 
> and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with 
> you.
>>
>> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, 
>> please indicate so, and we can gather opinions.
>
> I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking 
> you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that 
> others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. 
>  Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation.
>
>> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing 
>> decision of key civil society groups…
>
> I’m not confusing people, you are.  You are claiming, yet again, to be 
> speaking for “civil society,” when you are not.  It is a pretty major 
> misrepresentation.
>
> BD
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>>
>>>> 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 at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>> *******************************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), 
>>> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>> ********************************************************************
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), 
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ********************************************************************
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131227/c6c06403/attachment.htm>