[governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and BB

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I agree.  

That is why I was willing to support the version that was posted as final yesterday that praised the content without praising the process.

avri


On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:26, Gene Kimmelman wrote:

> In this world, money always talks; democracy is at best messy; we need to be able to act quickly in response to policy opportunities, or we limit our own ability to influence political processes -- so compromise languague is necessary to bring a broad global network together; and we must also be clever -- politics will always interfere with even the most wonderful democratic processes and legislation can change up to the last minute, so we need to be EQUALLY prepared to withdraw or adjust our support for efforts that go awry.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing.
> 
> If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing
> 
> However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can be changed.
> 
> So as I stands I recommend against signing.  If we do sign, someone somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported government driven and controlled processes in this case.  They will be right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to have done in the Brazilian congressional process.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 
> > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
> >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
> >>
> >
> > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"?
> >
> > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with the old formulation or the new one.
> >
> > --
> > Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> > Senior Policy Officer
> > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
> > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> >
> >
> > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >
> >
> > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> >
> > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> >
> > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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