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

Hartmut Richard Glaser glaser at cgi.br
Sat Nov 16 10:22:20 EST 2013 

My emphasis was that the Brazilian Meeting will NOT be a SUMMIT (only 
governments).

========================================================================
On 16/11/13 08:11, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 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/20131116/0ca1a17c/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