[bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Meeting in São Paulo on Friday, January 10th, is between the LOG and 1Net

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:18 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell us that well this is what has already happened and so.... But what is their preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there is a change of view, some clarification will be extremely helpful).
> 
> I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and clearly arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world.

Sorry for the apparent confusion.  The process has certainly been made clear to Adiel, to the LOG, and we thought it has also been made clear to the respective lists, but evidently not.  So let me restate my understanding of it:

The 1net representatives are separate from the Brazil meeting representatives, because 1net aims to be an ongoing dialogue whereas the Brazil meeting is a discrete event.
Following from point 1, it was never stated or anticipated that the 1net steering committee reps would themselves appoint the Brazil committee reps, and they were not selected in the expectation that do such a thing.
Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled (or is handling) the process for nominations.  (We do realise that Michael Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy about 1net, or Best Bits, or....)
As for the four liaisons that we appointed in Brazil, they took interim roles in liaising both with the 1net group and the Brazil organisers, but these interim appointments are superseded as more permanent appointments are made - initially of the new 1net steering committee representatives, and (pending) the representatives on the two Brazil committees.
The fact that the LOG has asked that the nominations for the Brazil committees go through the 1net committee initially flummoxed us because it flew in the face of what we thought we had clearly told them about our process.  But Ian's response is that we will send our selections directly to the LOG, and also (as a courtesy, if you like) to the 1net committee.

Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't clear enough already.  Parminder I realise that point 5 above is likely unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the plank of legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's intended as a bit of a compromise.

Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the coordination group.

-- 
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140110/8ef80309/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140110/8ef80309/attachment.sig>