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

[parminder]

On Sunday 29 December 2013 12:46 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> I think it would be good to find out from our Brazilian 
> representatives why this change happened before framing any reaction. 
> There may be other dimensions we are unaware of.
> Ian

Yes, I agree. But also, we should not be placated by any kind of 
superficial justification thrown our way ... We are supposed to 
representing 'the outsider' majority in these spaces, and need to stand 
up for our convictions... As is already evident, too many take IG civil 
society for granted, which is the reason this thing happened in the 
first place..

I really hope that sooner or later we will hear from our Brazilian 
Liaisons, among others.

parminder

> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 29, 2013 4:53 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; 
> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the 
> BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
> On the other hand, I also agree with Bill that this may be too 
> important a matter to be decided just by the leadership  of various CS 
> groups.
>
> I propose that a vote be taken among membership of different groups 
> here whether CS will like to deal directly with Brazilian hosts in the 
> matter of participating in the Brazil meeting or go through the 1Net..
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 28 December 2013 11:01 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote:
>>> This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging..
>>>
>>> Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various 
>>> committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed 
>>> Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue.....
>>
>> and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net 
>> committees ....
>>
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com 
>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Hi
>>>>     Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this.
>>>>     [snip]
>>>>
>>>>     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.   If the
>>>>     view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not
>>>>     handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel,
>>>>     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.
>>>>
>>>> *+ 2
>>>> *Louis
>>>>
>>>>     Best
>>>>     Bill
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131229/29025446/attachment.htm>