[governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net

[michael gurstein]

A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be more
than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning of
1Net (certainly by myself). 

 

My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) in
arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward 1Net
to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful response.

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org;
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for
1Net

 

 

On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that
was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil meeting,
make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial
areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions
and exclusions.  

 

            I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and
accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a
positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger
amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this
point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do
with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy
outcomes of that, and future, events. 

            Regards

 

                        David

 

            

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140210/7149a713/attachment.htm>