[governance] DMP} Proposed letter on role of Brazil liaisons
Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Sat Nov 16 05:11:23 EST 2013
This is a mistake. Brazil wishes a decision-making event, at a minimum capable of meaningful, concrete recommendations, at a mininum to try to set a sort of universal framework of principles for the Internet. Those who wish to reduce it to a re-edition of the IGF toothless dialogues (incidentally, also a UN mistake -- read the 12 items of the IGF mandate in the Tunis Agenda) are in for a surprise.
If it will work, well, it is another story.
--c.a.
------------
C. A. Afonso
-------- Original message --------
From: Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser at cgi.br>
Date: 15-11-2013 22:12 (GMT-03:00)
To: 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
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/20131116/a0f07fc6/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