[governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi guys,

I would hate to see this debate drag on for a few more days because with
that time and energy, we could get something out to the Brazilian
government/ presidency if that were to be the preferred choice by whatever
decision-making procedure is required here. So instead of further debating
this, the concerned organs (co-cos or steering committee, depending on
whether we're talking about IGC or BestBits) may exercise their judgement
as to whether to initiate such decision procedure. I (and I'm sure many
others here) certainly can live with either course of action because the
truth is nothing is really certain here, keeping in mind the following.

1. We may be looking at about two weeks (not 1) from now for the delivery
of any outcome from Bali BestBits to President Rousseff (I am assuming that
since the Bali session will be developing a full CS agenda, it might take
the whole day session to get something out and there shall be a few days
given to online comments and discussions by a broader audience and maybe
endorsements, etc.)

2. It is safe to assume that President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade
have not personally and directly been working on this initiative since they
declared it, but that a team is tasked on both sides to follow up and work
on details, etc. IMHO, it is a conjecture to say two weeks from now the
train will have left the station just as it is a bet to think it won't (and
as a result CS would not be playing catch-up, in its usual reactive mode.)
We may choose one path or the other, we should be able to admit that there
is no evidence to predict that one will certainly be better for us, across
the board, than the other (even though we can make sound arguments as to
why we think one or the other would be a smarter and more productive
choice), as that outcome will also depend on a number of things that may
happen in the next, say, ten days, which we don't have control over.

3. On the basis of the above, if our "Custodians" think it's worth getting
into decision mode, then let's get into the decision mode. Otherwise,
please let's adjourn the debate as to what is best and what is not, what is
right and what is wrong, until Bali.

4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including CS
proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both President
Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade.

Thanks,

Mawaki


On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>
> > I do want to
> > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and
> > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before.
>
> *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear.
>
> > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points
> > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the consensus
> > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have expressed
> > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I think it
> > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been
> > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative.
>
> The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”.
> That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are strongly
> in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain
> opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend political
> capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a decision
> in favor.
>
> Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not
> expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a
> consensus decision from being reached.
>
> If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in favor, most
> organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would never
> reach any decisions.
>
> > we are effectively working against each other here.
>
> Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some of
> the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to
> discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action, I
> strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working
> against each other here”.
>
> In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign it
> does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits
> action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter it
> could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter it
> could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do
> understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently.
>
> > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an
> > alternative. If that could be a solution for all
>
> No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since I've
> already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present
> letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat
> them again.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131013/32e48ec8/attachment.htm>