[bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal

Fri Aug 2 00:25:22 EDT 2013

On Wednesday 31 July 2013 01:19 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> But if she doesn't approve and she doesn't not disapprove .. it still 
> means she doesn't approve of this.  And the MAG has collectively told 
> the Indonesian local team to stop this activity of theirs,

While normally I try to restraint myself from responding , but this is 
an important matter, and this is really twiating of facts, facts that 
have clearly been stated on this list in the last few days...

So, no, the MAG collectively never told anything to the Indonesian 
team.... I understand the matter never came before the MAG (which I 
think it should have come). Only the MAG Chair and/ or IGF secretariat 
seem to have conveyed their disapproval of the controversial funding 
document/ strategy...

> so approval or disapproval or not disapproval is entirely moot here.

It isnt. I have the right to discuss the political views presented by 
the CS reps on the MAG, generally, but especially when their nomination 
is supported by the IGC... Positions in power comes with demands of 
accountability. A simple democratic norm.

>
> Also - you have said multiple times on this list that you treat this 
> as a political issue.

You dont seem to really understand what the meaning of the term 
'political' is, and you simply take it  to be a bad word.... Cant do 
anything here....  Yes, to repeat; my, and my organisation's work, is 
primarily political.

> If Anriette restates much the same thing, how does it become ad hominem?

Whitewashing seems to have become the trend on this list, and there is 
only that much time one can spend on un-doing the whitewashing...

parminder

>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 31-Jul-2013, at 13:03, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 05:20 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> She does not approve, you say
>>>
>>> She does not disapprove, you say.
>>
>> Precisely. And when I voice my concern about a civil society member 
>> of the MAG, as the oversight body over IGF program etc, taking such a 
>> neutral/ inactive  position, I am told off by a series of personal 
>> invectives.  Not done, and I would not take it.
>>
>>>
>>> And then you report her responding to your personal attack to the co 
>>> cos.
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to see what the co cos think here.
>>
>> I am too. Meanwhile if it has escaped the co cos notice, I cut paste 
>> the relevant portions of my email below...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     You tend to twist people's words in order to score political
>>>     points,
>>>     Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to
>>>     launch
>>>     into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an
>>>     organisation) whose views I generally respect.  (Anriette)
>>
>>     I refer these ad hominem comment to the co-coordinators for their
>>     views and decisions. I will wait for a week, till the 6th of
>>     August, to be told what views they have on these comments and
>>     whether they propose any action. If I dont get any response or
>>     get a response that no action is contemplated, I will proceed to
>>     express my views on what I think 'Anriette does' on this list in
>>     a similarly unconstrained manner as she has expressed
>>     personalised views about me... (Parminder)
>>
>>
>> (cut paste ends)
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --srs (htc one x)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 July 2013 10:52:12 PM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:35 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>>> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0530, parminder 
>>>> (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>> >>> Dear Parminder
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document".
>>>> >> Anriette
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Your email to which I responded ends as follows
>>>> >>
>>>> >> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is
>>>> >> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see
>>>> >> evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of
>>>> >> branding."
>>>> >> It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your
>>>> >> position  that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian 
>>>> organising
>>>> >> group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it.
>>>> >> Please justify how your above comment means anything else.
>>>> > Parminder,
>>>> >
>>>> > No offence intended but I'm utterly unable to understand how
>>>> > you can interpret Anriette's words the way you do.
>>>> > I don't see anything in her words you're quoting as
>>>> > indicating an approval of what the Indonesian group did.
>>>> Tapani
>>>>
>>>> I did not speak of her approving, only of her not disapproving 
>>>> ('nothing wrong with'), which is what her words clearly amount to. 
>>>> ...  ... parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130802/450b3915/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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