[governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea

Mawaki Chango ki_chango at yahoo.com
Thu May 10 22:27:49 EDT 2007 

Parminder, I appreciated you acknowledging my suggestion, and my
apologies to all the members who discussed the text if I didn't
bring it up ealier (haven't been able to keep up with this list
lately.) 

Other than that, I didn't mean to question whether or not it
should be permitted to discuss ICANN at the IGF: not only we've
been there before, too many times in my view, but I just don't
see how one could expect a contructive collaboration in open
processes such as these, by starting to forbid any topic from
discussion. At best, we can only discuss what are the best
strategies to adopt in accommodating various constituencies'
concerns without hindering the overarching goals of the causus.

Mawaki 

--- Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I
> downloaded
> > your
> > >email...
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Then you should have downloaded your email before
> > sending.  
> 
> Adam, you are being un-necessarily harsh on me...
> 
> Well, thats how I have set my mail server, It doesn’t download
> emails
> automatically because it interferes in my work. So when I
> wrote the email
> with the consensus call, well after the declared timeline, and
> after giving
> a 2 hour notice, and clicked on send/receive, I got the Mawaki
> email... So,
> that being that, you need not tell me how shd I set my email
> client...
> 
> But the point is - lets say I had seen Mawaki's email before I
> sent the
> consensus call, do you recommend that for a text which has
> been under
> discussion for many days, and many had contributed to it, I
> change as
> important a part of it as a heading because an email arrives
> minutes before
> the doc is sent out for consensus call.... will it be fair to
> those who
> contributed that part, and so many others who agreed to the
> whole text... Or
> do you suggest that I hold back the consensus call because of
> that email...
> Also, pl keep in mind, that Mawaki's contribution was support
> to the doc
> plus an advise with, in my understanding, more of a strategic
> rather
> substantive implication.
> 
> > Mawaki's email should be considered.
> 
> Your injunction is even more uncalled for, because I did
> consider Mawaki's
> email. In the best way I could. 
> 
> And you could easily see that my consideration of mawaki's
> inputs was
> genuine, because I contributed to the discussion on changing
> the heading by
> adding a word to mawaki's suggestion, which any one can
> understand is an
> endorsement of the new heading... So I cant see whats your
> problem...
> 
> > Your consensus call obviously does not represent
> > consensus.
> 
> Consensus calls don’t represent a consensus, they put a
> document out for
> consensus. And it is left to the co-coordinators to
> consolidate a document
> which in their opinion represents the best chance of a
> consensus. I have
> done that. And I think I have followed a fair process.
> However, you of
> course have recourse to the appeals committee... 
> 
> 
> Parminder 
> ________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change, Bangalore
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> 
> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> www.ITforChange.net 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:59 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> > Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea
> > 
> > >Sorry, Mawaki, I just sent out the consensus call before I
> downloaded
> > your
> > >email...
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Then you should have downloaded your email before
> > sending.  Mawaki's email should be considered.
> > Your consensus call obviously does not represent
> > consensus.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Adam
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >________________________________________________
> > >Parminder Jeet Singh
> > >IT for Change, Bangalore
> > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological
> Possibilities
> > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
> > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
> > >www.ITforChange.net
> > >
> > >>  -----Original Message-----
> > >>  From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com]
> > >>  Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:27 PM
> > >>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>  Subject: Re: [governance] IGC statement to IGF MAG - Yea
> > >>
> > >>  I support.
> > >>  I'd advise though to remove ICANN from the heading 2,
> but not
> > >>  from the text. Instead of :
> > >>
> > >>  "(2) ICANN and Core Internet Resources"
> > >>  we could have
> > >>  "(2) Core Internet Resources and current governance
> > >>  institutions"
> > >>  or a variant of that.
> > >>
> > >>  Mawaki
> > >>
> > >>  --- Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  > No kiss of death -- we will protest! We will not just
> send the
> > >>  > proposal
> > >>  > and wait... I assume we are engaged in disseminating
> and
> > >>  > lobbying for
> > >>  > our positions in our constituencies (and, in some
> cases, with
> > >>  > our
> > >>  > governments as well). In any case, we can negotiate a
> word
> > >>  > replacement
> > >>  > (meaning the same, of course) later on in the actual
> debate.
> > >>  > We can
> > >>  > replace, for example, "ICANN" with "core resources
> such as the
> > >>  >
> > >>  > administration/governance of names, numbers and
> protocols..."
> > >>  > :)
> > >>  >
> > >>  > --c.a.
> > >>  >
> > >>  > DRAKE William wrote:
> > >>  > > Milton Mueller wrote:
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > >> I fully agree with Carlos, both about delivering it
> now,
> > >>  > and about the
> > >>  > >> title. Thanks, Parminder for putting it together.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Has there been a formal consensus call, and that's
> what
> > >>  > we're responding
> > >>  > > to here?  If so what's the time frame?
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > I'm a yes on both of the above, although it occurs
> to me
> > >>  > that there was
> > >>  > > never any follow up discussion on Adam's argument
> that
> > >>  > framing #2 in
> > >>  > > terms of ICANN rather than just core resources would
> be the
> > >>  > kiss of
> > >>  > > death mAG-wise.  But as the clock is running down
> and we
> > >>  > have no
> > >>  > > alternative language to consider, I guess we'll just
> see how
> > >>  > it goes,
> > >>  > > assuming the proposal gets through the IGC process.
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Cheers,
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > Bill
> > >>  > >
> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>  > > You received this message as a subscriber on the
> list:
> > >>  > >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>  > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>  > >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>  > >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > >
> > >>  >
> > >>  > --
> > >>  >
> > >>  > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>  > Carlos A. Afonso
> > >>  > diretor de planejamento
> > >>  > Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
> > >>  > http://www.rits.org.br
> > >>  > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>  >
> > >>  > For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>  >
> > >>
> > >> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>
> > >>  For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >
> > >For all list information and functions, see:
> > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > 
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

More information about the Governance mailing list