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

[Ian Peter]

Hi Brenden, read with interest. I particularly noted “Let us also not forget that ICANN and its oversight are the main topic of the meeting”.

Is there some specific background to this claim? Is this really a conference specifically about ICANN oversight (and if it is, do we really think that is a good idea given other current issues?)

Ian Peter

From: Brenden Kuerbis 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:20 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu ; Mawaki Chango 
Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Norbert Bollow ; Anja Kovacs 
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014

Hello,


On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:



<snip> 

  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.


Apologies for the cross-post.

I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move ICANN away from unilateral oversight:

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/  



---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org


  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




  ____________________________________________________________
  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/20131017/d239a75c/attachment.htm>