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

Fri Nov 15 07:29:47 EST 2013

+1

I do support the letter as drafted for now, but  i agree that waiting for
concrete information is the smart way to go at this point.

Izumi

2013年11月15日金曜日 Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca:

> Parm, we should have a letter ready, but we should also be careful. We
> do not know what the gov is up to at this point. The Nov.11 deadline has
> passed and there is no news on a new date. The actual proposal might
> lead us to make changes in the letter.
>
> As we say in Rio: "muita calma nessa hora!" Actually is about time you
> all try and start learning some Brazilian Portuguese :)
>
> I would recommend waiting for one more week and if there is no news then
> send the letter, making sure it first reaches the steering committee in
> BR. It would be politically bad if they learned about the letter through
> the press or our lists.
>
> []s fraternos
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/15/2013 08:46 AM, parminder wrote:
> > 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
>

-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131115/b9c9ad5c/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