[governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons
Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Fri Nov 15 12:28:05 EST 2013
Minha sugestão é esperar mais uma semana.
------------
C. A. Afonso
-------- Original message --------
From: Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
Date: 15-11-2013 13:51 (GMT-03:00)
To: Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,"Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
Cc: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons
Oi, o meu irmao!
[c.a., sorry I only know of the Mozambican Portuguese which, as I was laughed at in Bahia, was more like the Portuguese Portuguese :)]
Caution to wait would make more sense to me if we knew the specific aspects of the summit item to be addressed in the BR govt's awaited statement and could evaluate the timing of this letter against that backdrop. Does anyone know? If so, is there a possible conflict with the content of the CS letter? If not, are we sure BR govt is not talking with whichever stakeholder has showed up (or knocked at their door) with some clear and serious ideas in order to work out precisely something for the content of the expected statement? Or that it might be made on assumptions that we will not feel comfortable with later on?
Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand well what the risks are vis-a-vis the BR govt for sending such letter even before their statement. I do understand the rationale of the other objection already discussed here re. stakeholder partition. But from the standpoint of someone who doesn't share that other objection, I'm just curious where you might see the risks taking into account the content of the letter.
In any event, I rest my case.
Abraços
Mawaki
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
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
>>>>>>> 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
>>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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/20131115/4da9ec17/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