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

[William Drake]

Hi P

I knew our moment of agreement would be fleeting :-)  Just to reply and then from there whatever whomever decides is fine by me.

On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:58 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Saturday 28 December 2013 02:58 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this.
>> 
>> But further to the question of being clear about who’s speaking, I guess I also don’t understand why you’re only asking for the views of the leaderships of these networks?
> 
> Because they alone can either respond on the basis of already established views of the respective groups or initiate a process for establishing such views. 

In Bali the initial presentation of 1net was problematic, you and few others were forcefully negative in response, and so the 30-odd people in the room rolled with it rather than arguing, which seemed advisable coming on the heels of the reportedly riotously confrontational IGC meeting that a bunch of people walked out of (which I alas had to miss).  But there were certainly people there who didn’t agree then and probably don’t now, especially since the situation has become clearer over time.   If again nobody wants to engage on the point fine, they missed last call at the bar, but it doesn’t seem right to simply assume that what a subset of folks thought two months ago commits everyone else now.
> 
>>  Undoubtedly there are varying views among their memberships  about whether CS should present its nominations to the conference committees in the same way as other stakeholders, as the LOG has asked us to do for simplicity’s sake.  
> 
> I dont see the alleged 'simplicity'. Simplicity consists in any nominating process writing directly to the email id of the local organising group which has been publicised. I see a clear layer of complexity being added by introducing 1Net into this process. And I read a huge political factor behind it.
> 
> BTW, if it were just for 'simplicity's' sake it would also mean there was not much 'substantive' difference between one process and the other... In which case what do you have against CS directly corresponding with Brazilian organisers? 

I don’t care what the networks involved decide as long as it is not characterized in a totalizing manner as the stance of CS generally.  I’ve had people from other corners of the universe ask “why is CS refusing to participate in 1net” and have had to explain it is not, there are different groupings, blah blah blah…So I’m just asking for clarity on who’s speaking when statements are made.  As to the LOG, I read their messages to date as to boiling down to a simplicity rationale, but if that’s the wrong word Carlos or Hartmut or whomever can explain what would be the right one.
> 
>> Surely you’re not suggesting that the leaders should just take whatever stances they want because their memberships have varying views (well, Best Bits doesn’t actually have members to represent, but whatever).  
> 
> We agree. I have been telling BB guys this for a long time.. 

Twice in one day we agree?  Break out the champagne!
> 
>> While I’m not trying to initiate another long and needlessly divisive thread about representational modalities, I don’t think continuing down this road will be helpful to anyone.  
>> 
>> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians.  
> 
> You know, Bill. 1Net like one mystery novel of which no one is able to make out the plot... You say it has just one identifiable function that of channelling nominations. John Curran of the I* group, 
> who was present at Montevedio when 1Net idea was born - recently said on the 1Net list that he doesnt know of any such function and 1Net is a discussion space (unless and until be becomes something else).... To be precise, let me quote John
> 
> "At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I know of no mechanism for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about its role (whatever that may be)
> …."

John is obviously correct that until 1net has a seated CC, there’s no way for the CC to provide the LOG with names….?
> 
>  It is my opinion that majority of people here do not think what you say is 1Net's 'one identifiable function’.

To my knowledge the only identifiable function the 1net CC has been asked to perform to date is to provide the LOG with names.  Unlike you I am unable intuit the thinking of hundreds of people from the few bits of conversation about the CC’s function, so if people believe others have been agreed it’d be good to hear what these are.

>> If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel,
> 
> Whether 1Net should be or not the channel for CS role in Brazil meeting was extensively discussed among 'many' CS members in Bali, and also on IGC and BB lists... In fact I dont remember any opposition at all to the view that was adopted - that no, CS would like to engage directly with Brazilian on the Brazil meeting, and 4 mentioned CS groups - IGC, BB, IRP and APC signed on it. 

And if that’s still their position in light of events since Bali, great.  But it’d be better to confirm than assume, no?
> 
>> then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its coordination committee.  I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave according to their principles rather than trying to have it both ways. 
> 
> I think those who are nominated/ slated to sit on the 1Net coordination committee from the CS side should answer this. They must certainly have some idea about what the purpose and function of 1Net is. I really hope they have some such idea.. And most of them were closely associated with developing the civil society position that I have been referring to. 

Sounds good.  

Cheers

Bill
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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> 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> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131228/a1037d69/attachment.htm>