[bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Dec 28 04:58:07 EST 2013
On Saturday 28 December 2013 02:58 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this.
>
> But further to the question of being clear about who’s speaking, I
> guess I also don’t understand why you’re only asking for the views of
> the leaderships of these networks?
Because they alone can either respond on the basis of already
established views of the respective groups or initiate a process for
establishing such views.
> Undoubtedly there are varying views among their memberships about
> whether CS should present its nominations to the conference committees
> in the same way as other stakeholders, as the LOG has asked us to do
> for simplicity’s sake.
I dont see the alleged 'simplicity'. Simplicity consists in any
nominating process writing directly to the email id of the local
organising group which has been publicised. I see a clear layer of
complexity being added by introducing 1Net into this process. And I read
a huge political factor behind it.
BTW, if it were just for 'simplicity's' sake it would also mean there
was not much 'substantive' difference between one process and the
other... In which case what do you have against CS directly
corresponding with Brazilian organisers?
> Surely you’re not suggesting that the leaders should just take
> whatever stances they want because their memberships have varying
> views (well, Best Bits doesn’t actually have members to represent, but
> whatever).
We agree. I have been telling BB guys this for a long time..
> While I’m not trying to initiate another long and needlessly divisive
> thread about representational modalities, I don’t think continuing
> down this road will be helpful to anyone.
>
> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work
> through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians,
> they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination
> committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling
> nominations to the Brazilians.
You know, Bill. 1Net like one mystery novel of which no one is able to
make out the plot... You say it has just one identifiable function that
of channelling nominations. John Curran of the I* group,
who was present at Montevedio when 1Net idea was born - recently said on
the 1Net list that he doesnt know of any such function and 1Net is a
discussion space (unless and until be becomes something else).... To be
precise, let me quote John
"At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I
know of no mechanism for "1net" to even respond to the meeting
organizers about its role (whatever that may be)
...."
It is my opinion that majority of people here do not think what you
say is 1Net's 'one identifiable function'.
> If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not
> handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel,
Whether 1Net should be or not the channel for CS role in Brazil meeting
was extensively discussed among 'many' CS members in Bali, and also on
IGC and BB lists... In fact I dont remember any opposition at all to the
view that was adopted - that no, CS would like to engage directly with
Brazilian on the Brazil meeting, and 4 mentioned CS groups - IGC, BB,
IRP and APC signed on it.
> then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from
> its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if
> someone else does they should behave according to their principles
> rather than trying to have it both ways.
I think those who are nominated/ slated to sit on the 1Net coordination
committee from the CS side should answer this. They must certainly have
some idea about what the purpose and function of 1Net is. I really hope
they have some such idea.. And most of them were closely associated with
developing the civil society position that I have been referring to.
Parminder
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are
>> interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS
>> groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually
>> incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say
>> it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected.
>>
>> (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew
>> exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate
>> accordingly...)
>>
>> In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP
>> colaition to let us know what there current position is on this
>> issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are
>> going in the direction that they did not want them to go..
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Small corrections please
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Carlos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few
>>>>>> hours from now...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups
>>>>>
>>>>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to
>>>>> give their names so the message is understood properly.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks
>>>> - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the
>>>> Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand
>>>> that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken..
>>>
>>> Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the
>>> same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s
>>> not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote.
>>> IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t
>>> recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have
>>> reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG
>>> (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a
>>> lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG.
>>> So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing
>>> proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as
>>> both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t
>>> recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about
>>> whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us
>>> to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do
>>> remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be
>>> the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very
>>> same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of
>>> nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its
>>> coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your
>>> cake and eat it too incoherence.
>>>
>>> Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel
>>> that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process
>>> in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who
>>> you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t
>>> agree with you.
>>>>
>>>> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed,
>>>> please indicate so, and we can gather opinions.
>>>
>>> I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking
>>> you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that
>>> others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective.
>>> Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation.
>>>
>>>> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing
>>>> decision of key civil society groups…
>>>
>>> I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to
>>> be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty
>>> major misrepresentation.
>>>
>>> BD
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various
>>>>>> organising committees directly to the local organising group
>>>>>> (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society
>>>>>> side
>>>>>
>>>>> from these members of the civil society ‘side’
>>>>>
>>>>>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to
>>>>>> the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising
>>>>>> committees. We
>>>>>
>>>>> These civil society groups
>>>>>
>>>>> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the
>>>>> unnecessary confusion that’s arisen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or
>>>>>> any such other group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken
>>>>>> the political role of organising this important meeting; it
>>>>>> cannot now shirk from the corresponding political
>>>>>> responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been
>>>>>> given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil
>>>>>> as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if
>>>>>> they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception
>>>>>> would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the
>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons -
>>>>>> the names being already communicated to them - equal status and
>>>>>> involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is
>>>>>> being given to some other non governmental groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with
>>>>>> the LOG, and also with us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and best regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *******************************************************************
>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>>>> ********************************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>> *******************************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>> ********************************************************************
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131228/7adfe56e/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list