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

Mawaki Chango kichango at gmail.com
Fri Nov 15 14:31:10 EST 2013 

'Ta bom, então!

--mc


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> 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/20131115/4b4108ae/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