[bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Seems to me that the proposal for an alternate forum, and this other one below, miss out on something. 

Has anybody at all advocating these moves asked the Brazilians whether they have the intent, bandwidth etc to deal with input from a multiplicity of fora / direct input sent by multiple different civil society, and by extension, industry, academia, groups representing other civil society that aren't necessarily the igov usual suspects, etc?

--srs (iPad)

> On 28-Dec-2013, at 23:23, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, I also agree with Bill that this may be too important a matter to be decided just by the leadership  of various CS groups.
> 
> I propose that a vote be taken among membership of different groups here whether CS will like to deal directly with Brazilian hosts in the matter of participating in the Brazil meeting or go through the 1Net..
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
>> On Saturday 28 December 2013 11:01 PM, parminder wrote:
>> 
>>> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote:
>>> This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging..
>>> 
>>> Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue.....
>> 
>> and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net committees .... 
>> 
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>>> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.   If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, 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. 
>>>> + 2
>>>> Louis 
>>>> 
>>>>> Best
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131229/26ddb2fe/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