[governance] Remote Participation

Sat Feb 25 11:44:25 EST 2012

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:37 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Sala
>
> Despite my numerous requests to the contrary I am completely unable to
> understand why we should, consistently and religiously, mention private
> sector before civil society where ever they come together.
[Thanks you did mention this once]

 Now this could
> not be  a mistake because I always see it in this order, and even in this
> document they appear together more than once and always in the same order.

[The Statement has been in the workspace where people can comment on
the various paragraphs]
> So, obviously, there is some thinking behind it which I would like to be
> enlightened about.
>
> (Also why this- "We also encourage greater partnership between the
> governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation." What does
> this mean.)

 Countries differ in regulatory models. Governments can promote the
existence of an information Society. They can provide the relevant
stimuli to enable the private sector to offer sponsorship of these
sort of environment that enables and allows for collaboration.

The Private Sector such as Telcos or ISPs for instance has the
capability of laying FttX to conference venues which could do wonders
to bandwidth capability as part of their contribution to the event.
>
> I am also unable to understand the new process of seeking rough consensus
> that is being adopted.
In the context of the Remote Participation Statement that was
initially developed, this was sent to the CSTD civil society members
for the purposes of empowering them with the "wishes of the list". I
did not send it as yet to the IGF Secretariat and saw that there were
comments coming in.You will see on the Statement Workspace that there
are two versions of the Statement. One was the version that went to
the CSTD and the other one that reflects the new comments and
additions that came later. The newly revised Statement will then be
sent to the IGF Secretariat.

 It has been an almost hallowed practice that once a
> statement is put for a 48 hour notice to invite rough consensus no changes
> can be made to it.   But nowadays it seems that a statement is put out for
> rough consensus and at the same time changes/ comments to it are invited,
> and then the co-coordinators forward whatever new form of statement that
> they feel like forwarding. It is obviously impossible for anyone to  say yes
> or no to a statement that is still being modified.

I think it is always safe to use the Charter as a guideline and this
is what the Charter says:

[Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been
made to accommodate minority points of view.
When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough
consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the
consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty
eight (48) hours of final discussion.]

The use of "at least 48 hours" allows for more than 48 hours of final
discussion. There is discretion (captured within the semantics) that
allows for further extended discussion beyond the 48 hours and this is
something that coordinators have the discretion to assess and see.
When Izumi initiated the preparation of the Statement it was meant for
use at the CSTD workshop. The consolidation of information was done by
Deirdre and I posted it on the Statement Workspace where people
commented on. There were also comments from the list. This earlier
version went to the CSTD civil society members in an email. Marilia
advised that they used some of the things that we highlighted in the
Statement in their deliberations. Marilia asked me whether I had sent
it to the IGF Secretariat and I advised her that we had not.

However, it has evolved to something that we will send to the IGF
Secretariat on the issue of Remote Participation by members of RPWG.
Since there were comments still flowing in, I retained the early
version which is in the Statement Workspace. I then incorporated the
new thoughts and expression of how to make the earlier version better.
people have been commenting and raising issues etc.

>
> Also, the practice has been that, before the 48 hour period, proposed
> changes to any statement have to be suggested on the email list here, with
> due justifications.
Yes, this is largely done but we also have a Statements Workspace
which enables us to work more efficiently by allowing and capturing
people's comments on specific paragraphs etc. The list is
simultaneously open to people interacting on the said issues. I have
addressed the "before 48 hour period" in this case. We had not sent
the statement to the IGF Secretariat yet and still have time to polish
our statement.

There is a good reason for this. We follow principles of
> deliberative democracy where positions are negotiated and forwarded on basis
> of reasoning and deliberation.
If you look at the manner of interaction on the threads in relation to
RP people do have their say and in fact are invited to draft "texts"
and "language" etc. I don't know what you mean by deliberative and
always happy to learn.

Frankly, I am quite lost.... pariminder

>
> On Friday 24 February 2012 10:30 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
> This is a friendly reminder that there is still another 26 hours to go if
> you would like to make further edits and comments on the new insertions to
> the Statement on remote participation.
>
> Let us have your thoughts. Once the 26 hours has lapsed, we will take the
> final document and send as the IGC Statement to the IGF Secretariat.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> The Statement that I had sent in-text reflecting the new contributions etc
>> is now on the Statement Workspace. I would urge you to visit
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 where you can comment on
>> specific paragraphs and suggest changes, amendments and variations or
>> reflections and thoughts.
>>
>> With our original Statement that was developed, was given to the CSTD who
>> have facilitated our concerns. This newly edited Statement is put to the
>> list for another 48 hours which will form the official IGC position, so
>> please make your voices heard. This will be sent to the IGF Secretariat.
>>
>> Warm Regards from Fiji,
>> Sala
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t