[bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE

[parminder]

This is exactly like, one party proposes marriage, and the other show 
great enthusiasm and starts discussing wedding arrangements, and at a 
later point says, well, of course, I never really meant to say yes to 
the proposal. .. parminder


On Tuesday 18 November 2014 01:38 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 11:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within 
>> civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an 
>> involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is 
>> not possible for everyone to make an informed decision.
>
> I see (1) readiness in general to go with the NM Initiative, given 
> conditions of CS nomination are met, and (2) actual process and 
> agreement (or not) of CSCG's role in CS nominees, as two different issues.
>
> JNC statement only say that most CS group seem to have agreed to (1). 
> Is this incorrect....
>
>> Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of 
>> veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who 
>> oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant 
>> factors as regards considering involvement for others.
>
> Exactly, that is my point. So, obviously, other CS groups do not 
> oppose the NMI as such, other than perhaps possible differences on CS 
> nominations to its coordination committee. What we say in JNC's 
> statement, and the note 4 explaining the basis of our assertion is 
> very clear
>
> "**For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by ... (so 
> and so organisations) .., the chair of the Civil Society Coordination 
> Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to 
> organize a selection process for civil society representatives for 
> NMI's coordination committee..."
>
> Is this statement untrue?
>
> Meanwhile, since it was an official letter written by you as CSCG head 
> to WEF/ NMI , on basis on the above mentioned positive views of 
> concerned CS organisations, why do you not just make that letter 
> public and people can make their own judgement.
>
> We obviously cannot write our statements exactly, as for instance 
> Jeremy would want us to.... However, we write what we write 
> responsibly and with full justification. Please make the mentioned 
> letter public to NMI/ WEF, and, as always, we are ready for a full 
> discussion on this issue of who has expressed what view, and undertook 
> what actions, and implications there of.
>
> It is  really our not problem is some of the CS members might now be 
> re considering their views on the NMI issue - in face of the recent 
> statements, or otherwise... As you will see from the text, this was 
> precisely the purpose of JNC's statement, and we would be happy to see 
> movement in the direction of achieving this purpose. We really want CS 
> groups to reconsider their position and refuse to endorse the NM 
> Initiative.
>
> parminder
>> Ian
>> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM
>> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN 
>> NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE
>> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.
>>> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination 
>>> Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is 
>>> still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat 
>>> and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating 
>>> role in the selection of civil society representatives in a 
>>> coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made 
>>> by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society 
>>> representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not 
>>> yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to 
>>> be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition 
>>> (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members 
>>> are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and 
>>> inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives 
>>> before making any final decisions on participation.
>>
>> Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by 
>> the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS 
>> nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in 
>> taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to 
>> make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is 
>> happening within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so 
>> on... parminder
>>
>>> Our letter to  the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no 
>>> way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final 
>>> decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection 
>>> process or to participate in the NMI process.
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/f53ad716/attachment.htm>