[governance] DMP} Re: LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014

[Norbert Bollow]

[the "DMP}" in the subject line indicates that this posting is
intended to be part of an IGC Decision-Making Process. Specifically,
I'm asking towards the end for any objections against the idea of a
specific, simple kind of letter to be voiced.]

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 11/10/13 16:01, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Hence I propose that IGC goes ahead and drafts and sends very soon a
> > first letter simply from IGC. This could IMO be a relatively simple
> > letter, expressing appreciation and interest and requesting that
> > international civil society not be left out from full and effective
> > participation in the planned event and its preparatory process.
> 
> On the other hand, it is even harder for the IGC to agree on a letter
> than it is for Best Bits, since the IGC requires consensus.  And there
> are enough IGC members saying "no" to the letter already that I wonder
> whether consensus will be possible...

While I must admit that I have not analyzed every posting in great
detail, I've read the discussion as BestBits participants desiring to
use the in person gathering in Bali for gaining, through discussion,
additional clarity on the new situation, and then sending a letter
based on the outcome of that. I'm not at all opposed to that idea. In
fact, I'm in favor of it.

But from the IGC perspective [here I'm putting my IGC coordinator hat
on for a moment] a BestBits plan to send a more substantive letter at
a later point in time is not a reason for IGC not to send a simple
letter already now based on the information and understanding that we
have already know.

[the following paragraph is written just in my personal capacity]
Given that we already have a consensus decision supporting Brazil's
policy statements at the UN GA which are what has led to this
development, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to also get consensus
or at least rough consensus to support the logical next step and at the
same time say that it should please be inclusive of international civil
society. I really don't see how that could reasonably be controversial
now. It wouldn't commit us to anything. All it would do is (a) influence
the discussions before the IGF and at the IGF in a positive way, and (b)
if it should happen during the preparatory process for this event that
things start might start going in a bad direction, our protests will
have increased weight then if we build positive relationships now.

[the following paragraph is with IGC coordinator hat on again]
Is there any objection against IGC sending, early next week, a
relatively simple letter expressing appreciation and interest and
requesting that international civil society not be left out from full
and effective participation in the planned event and its preparatory
process? In case of any objection, the reasoning behind the objection
should also be explained please. (Obviously, this inquiry about any
objections against the fundamental idea of such a letter will, if no
objections are mde, be followed by a consensus process for the text
of the letter.)

Greetings,
Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131011/2ee78ec5/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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