Fwd: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree
Jeremy Malcolm
jeremy at ciroap.org
Wed May 22 22:00:53 EDT 2013
This thread was sent to the old list address. Forwarding it to the new one.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
> Date: 23 May, 2013 12:16:19 AM GMT+08:00
> To: Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
> Cc: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>, "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>, "bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org" <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal today if you agree
>
> Marianne, Nupef has decided to sign with a view quite similar to yours.
>
> If we expect to build a consensus treatise, this will never happen. It is a process, and we see this statement as part of a process that will certainly improve/change/refine it.
>
> Ritght now, we feel it is politically important to sign it.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 05/22/2013 06:22 AM, Marianne Franklin wrote:
>> Dear Parminder
>>
>> Thank you for this invaluable other point of view. I think the points
>> below need some discussion on this list as the discussion on the Best
>> Bits list was curtailed due to time pressures. The question before us is
>> whether enough people feel this statement warrants our support in
>> principle, and whether the current wording and framing of the statement
>> is good enough to sign up to.
>>
>> As this coalition does more than sign up to petitions and statements
>> alone it is perhaps a good moment to consider whether this one is ‘ fit
>> for purpose’. I lend my support to it because it is good enough for now.
>> Not good enough in the long term but for now. This of course is a very
>> pragmatic point of view so I for one am interested in hearing more about
>> whether the IRP Coalition should not sign.
>>
>> The current Best Bits statement is now in the public domain so we can
>> sign up or not. That said, whatever we decide right now, it might be
>> productive for us to think about alternative wordings and phrasing that
>> can respond to the objections in 1) and 2) below for the longer term.
>>
>> At this stage too it occurred to me that as a coalition we might want to
>> consider what constitutes a quorum for any consensual decision-making.
>> Numbers are not enough alone but establishing a threshold is an element
>> in these processes; e.g. 10% responses would be at present 31 members
>> and so on.
>>
>> Looking forward to hearing more voices.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> MF
>>
>> *From:*irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On Behalf Of
>> *parminder
>> *Sent:* 22 May 2013 05:11
>> *To:* irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF
>> proposal today if you agree
>>
>>
>> Dear All
>>
>> As discussed elsewhere, I continue to be unclear whether this is a
>> proposal for urgent and high priority discussion of a particular subject
>> - gov role in global IG, or a proposal for testing a process for the IGF
>> to produce more concrete outcomes.... The response to my queries on this
>> count has not at all been clear.
>>
>> I am independently very interested both in,
>>
>> (1) Exploring the role of all stakeholders, including governments, in
>> global IG. However in the context of the recent statment by some civil
>> society organisations at the end of WTPF, I had asked for clarification
>> on what exactly is meant by equal role/ participation of all
>> stakeholders. I got no response. While i fully accept the legitimacy of
>> some civil society organisations getting together and issuing
>> statements that they agree on, due to time related exigencies or
>> otherwise, even when they are aprt of wider networks, what I do not find
>> legitimate is not even providing clarifications about text of the
>> statement post facto to members of those networks.
>>
>> and
>>
>> (2) exploring how IGF can be more effective, and produce more concrete
>> outcomes (we, as in my organisation, did a lot in this regard at the WG
>> on IGF improvements against a lot of resistance - active or passive -
>> from some other civil society participants, which I am still to fully
>> understand). However this is a larger - much larger - subject - which
>> should be deliberated in CS lists and a considered specific proposal
>> should be made. Such a proposal cannot be pushed through a back-door of
>> what looks like a completely different proposal about taking up a
>> particular subject for discussion at the IGF.
>>
>> For these reasons, we cant sign it, and propose that BestBits and IRP
>> coalition do not sign it either..
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Tuesday 21 May 2013 10:58 PM, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) wrote:
>>
>> i agree!
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/5/21, Brown, Abbe<abbe.brown at abdn.ac.uk> <mailto:abbe.brown at abdn.ac.uk>:
>>
>> I think yes
>>
>>
>>
>> Abbe
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>
>> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
>>
>> Marianne Franklin
>>
>> Sent: 21 May 2013 10:29
>>
>> To: Jeremy Malcolm;irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal
>>
>> today if you agree
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks very much Jeremy
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear IRP'ers. Please access the link and let us know if the IRP Coalition
>>
>> should sign up to this. There has been some intense and thorough discussion
>>
>> on the Best Bits list about wording and the drafting process itself:
>>
>> discussions which this list are accustomed to.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let us know asap I.e. today!
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> MF
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>
>> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>
>> Sent: 21 May 2013 10:21
>>
>> To:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Reminder: please endorse IGF proposal
>>
>> today if you agree
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21/05/13 16:59, Marianne Franklin wrote:
>>
>> Dear Jeremy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you resend the link/document please and through to the IRP list
>>
>> as I see that time is short. For some reason I can't access the
>>
>> statement to forward or read.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>
>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>
>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> IRP mailing list
>>
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No
>>
>> SC013683.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> IRP mailing list
>>
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130523/752aea89/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list