[governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text)

[Norbert Bollow]

Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders
> who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi stakeholder
> push while petitioning for CS to be included?  Shouldn't we be
> addressing our thoughts to both of them.
> 
> On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to
> wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so against
> sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its signature
> to an appropriately addressed note.

I don't see anything inappropriate about addressing this note to the
Brazilian government.

If CS doesn't get included, it wouldn't be the fault of Fadi or of
anyone else at ICANN. ICANN is not in the habit of excluding
stakeholders, but governments have that habit. It would be the fault of
some government bureaucrat(s) either acting on (bad) habit, or acting
out of an unhealthy relationship with telecom companies that still have
a pre-Internet mindset, or acting of of such a pre-Internet telecom
mindset they may have themselves.

So it is in my view quite appropriate to communicate to the person who
is able to solve this problem by simply telling her bureaucrats to work
with civil society.

I don't like the idea of adding Fadi to the list of addressees for this
particular letter, because doing so would reduce the clarity about who
needs to take the necessary action to ensure the inclusion of civil
society.

I do however agree on the point that there is an imbalance if we
express appreciation only for the Brazilian president and government
but not for the (at least in my view) at least equally significant
contribution of Fadi.

How about addressing a separate note to Fadi which simply expresses
appreciation?

If we want to take that route, it might be best to combine the
endorsements / sign-on process for both letters, making it a package
deal, i.e. each person or organization would either endorse both or
none of the two letters.

Thoughts?

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- 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