Remote participation plans Re: [OCDC] Re: [governance] Do we

[Ken Lohento]

Hi

My two cents : I have to agree with Avri. To my knowledge the MAG didn't 
not take any decision to stop the OCDC (I can't remember neither any 
formal discussion about stopping a working group or DC). It's however 
true that some MAG members, who were members of this group, announced 
that they were leaving it (I understood they said it was not working 
properly).But there was no MAG decision about it.

Rgds

KL

Avri Doria a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to point out a correction to Adam's original remark and 
> hence to Jeremy's comment n it.
>
> There never was a decision in Secretariat, nor any action, to remove  
> the OCDC or to silence it in any way.  Many of the members of the 
> group did quit at one point, but as you will notice, the OCDC is still 
> listed on the IGF's DC page: 
> http://www.intgovforum.org/Dynamic%20Coalitions.php . Ie. "the MAG and 
> Secretariat never stepped in."  I would note that there have not been 
> any postings in the OCDC (http://igf-online.net) other then from 
> Jeremy in a while.
>
> To my knowledge, neither the OCDC nor the "IGF Remote Participation 
> Working Group" mentioned by Ginger, have been barred from comment at 
> any meeting. In fact the OCDC made a report in Rio which, if I recall, 
> Jeremy read out  
> http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-ReportingBack-15NOV07.txt, 
> and comments from the IGF Remote Participation WG were read out in 
> Geneva at the last consultations.
>
> Ginger's group, btw, has not yet asked to be listed as one of the 
> DCs.  It is my assumption that if this group wishes to be listed as 
> one of the DCs, it only needs to send information, in the same format 
> as the other DCs, to the IGF office with the request.
>
> a.
>
> On 27 May 2008, at 22:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your 
>>> dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat 
>>> and MAG stepped in.
>>
>> ...
>
>>  First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the 
>> concerted back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration Dynamic 
>> Coalition, as part of which you and the other MAG members who had 
>> been members of its mailing list left en masse.  It is a shame that 
>> you couldn't have been open about your intentions at the time.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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