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

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

FWIW: I would CC Fadi. It cannot hurt, and might help.

On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131012/e5ed982a/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