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

Fri Nov 15 19:12:50 EST 2013

Hi,

Please avoid the expression SUMMIT. It will be a Conference ...., a 
Dialog ..., or an event that clearly shows a multistakeholder
support. SUMMIT normaly is used for High Level Government Meetings.

regards

Hartmut

===================================
On 15/11/13 15:18, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> I refer to the summit's steering committee nominated by the BR prez 
> after she met Fadi and announced the meeting.
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Date: 15-11-2013 10:28 (GMT-03:00)
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons
>
>
>
> On Friday 15 November 2013 04:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso 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.
>
> Sorry, Carlos, did not understand which steering committee you refer to
> here. If it is the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, sure we can
> send letter to both Brazilian gov and the Steering Committee.
>
> I still think we should send a letter to them right away with just the
> names of our 4 Brazilian liaisons .... I have a feeling that they
> (Brazilians) do not fully realise the feeling among the civil society
> for a direct liaison with Brazilian hosts, and not through the so called
> coalition of non gov stakeholders being presented.... Unless of course
> you know of something that I dont know, which is quite likely..
>
> parminder
>
> > 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
> >>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131115/1659b2e8/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