[governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text

[McTim]

I agree with Avri, clearly it should be addressed to both (not just
cc: one party).

I still haven't heard anything reality based to indicate why Brasil
should be mentioned first in the first para.

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:08 PM, avri doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> avri
>
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> Date: 10/12/2013 10:55 (GMT-05:00)
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text
>
>
> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [MG>] As per the various discussions, comments, suggestions could I
>> now formally propose the following shorter text to replace the draft
>> text currently under consideration
>
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
> Thanks Michael!
>
> I was getting a bit uneasy procedurally as it was not quite clear how
> the text that consensus was apparently developing around would be
> related to the formal IGC decision-making process that had been
> initiated as being based on a different text (the one taken from what
> was at that time the status of the etherpad).
>
> On the basis of this proposal, I hereby issue the following two-part
> consensus call:
>
> 1) Do we have consensus on using the text that Michael posted as the
> basis for going forward? Any objections to this part should please state
> explicitly something like "I object to part 1 of the consensus call" and
> give a justification, i.e. an explanation of why for some specific
> reason this text is worse than the original draft that came from the
> etherpad.
>
> 2) Do we have consensus on accepting this text as-is without further
> changes? Any objections to this part should please state explicitly
> something like "I object to part 2 of the consensus call", and make an
> explicit change request (i.e. you'd make an explicit proposal with new
> text and a clear indication of where it would go, and/or what should be
> deleted) and justification (i.e. and explanation why this change is in
> your view necessary).
>
> Please post any objections to either part 1 or part 2 by Sunday Oct
> 13 6am UTC.
>
> Silence will be interpreted as no-objection. Explicit statements of
> support will not influence this stage of the process materially, but are
> nevertheless very welcome!
>
> A full copy of the concerned proposed text follows.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the
>> Brazilian government,
>>
>> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from
>> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support
>> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil,
>> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>> (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance”
>> and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global
>> information societies.
>>
>> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the
>> future development of the Internet in the global public interest and
>> for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world.
>>
>> Civil society offers to fully participate in this undertaking as an
>> equal partner, whose various processes we believe should be open and
>> inclusive. Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society
>> partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues,
>> and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative.
>>
>> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to
>> contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals.
>> We also look forward to carrying on a dialogue on this initiative at
>> the upcoming Bali IGF.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

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