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

[Adam Peake]

At 11:27 AM -0400 5/29/08, Avri Doria wrote:
>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."


Avri,

Best I can remember there were chat rooms and 
email addresses (in multiple languages), who set 
those up and monitored them?

(igf-ocdc at igf-online.net list not cc'd.)

Thanks,

Adam



>  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