[governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons

[Norbert Bollow]

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Is there any way for this opposition "on principle" to be reconciled
with the intention behind to proposed letter on the role of the
liaisons?

If not, full consensus will clearly not be possible on this matter,
and it may be appropriate to use the rough consensus process.

There was very strong support for what this letter has been proposed to
express among the IGC members who participated in person in the
relevant discussions in Bali.

The rough consensus process which is explicitly allowed by the IGC
Charter could be implemented for example by means of using online
polling software to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority
of IGC members in support of such a letter. According to the Charter,
such a rough consensus poll has to run at least 48 hours, then the
coordinators would jointly decide to interpret the result as "rough
consensus" or not. (That is of course a decision that can be appealed if
desired.)

But we should certainly discuss the matter first.

Greetings,
Norbert


Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> I will oppose this on principle as drawing any sort of artificial
> distinction between the technical community and civil society is
> counterproductive in the long run.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> > On 14-Nov-2013, at 15:29, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 14/11/13 12:00, parminder wrote:
> >>>> Once again, as suggested by Matthew, I do believe a formal letter
> >>>> nominating and explaining our role as liasons, and not
> >>>> representatives, for International Civil Society for information
> >>>> regarding the Summit will be good to legitimate and help our job
> >>>> here.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> A formal letter naming our liaisons and making it clear that
> >>> global civil society would want to use this mechanism to
> >>> coordinate its role in the proposed Brazil meeting and not go
> >>> through 1net or any other tehcnical community led interface is of
> >>> the highest priority at this stage. Dont want to get into
> >>> I-told-you-so mode, but I have been insisting that we did that
> >>> first and in clear terms since our earliest meetings in Bali. If
> >>> we have got such a communication through in clear terms, maybe
> >>> our four reps would have been there at the above meeting. At
> >>> least if they werent invited we could have protested...
> >> 
> >> Draft letter is here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil-reps
> > 
> > Looks good to me.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert


-------------- 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