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

[parminder]

I am completely unable to understand delaying the process of intimating 
to the Brazilian gov that we, as in CS, will like to have direct liaison 
with Brazilian gov on the forthcoming meeting, and for this purpose, 
these are our four liaison persons.

In fact there is every reason to send the  proposed letter to Brazil gov 
*before* they make any definitive announcement about the proposed 
meeting, and possible also lay out the manner in which it will be 
organised, and so on...

If IGC is to permanently keep itself tied in self doubts and 
contradictions, the world will simply move on without it. On the 
bestbits list I saw no opposition to sending this letter right away 
(including, quite surprisingly, by those who are opposing it here, and 
are also on the BB list)

parminder


On Thursday 14 November 2013 04:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> An announcement from Brazil about the meeting is expected any time now.  Please do not send any letter until the Brazilian government's plans are clear.
>
> Adam
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> [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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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/20131115/a92223d7/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