[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi,


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bill,
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a
> framing
> > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group
> > wishes to take at the expense of others.  Fadi went to Dilma, they talked
> > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed
> > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get
> > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include
> people
> > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable
> > end states.  Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to
> > voice your concerns.  If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the
> > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own
> relationship
> > to the Brazil meeting.  But surely that doesn't mean that those who do
> > shouldn't be able to.
>
> Sums it up nicely.
>
> >
> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved,
> why do
> > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded?
>
> good question!
>

Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about
this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain?
I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting
"intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past the
initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint
meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have
different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But
frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct
"relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the
most desirable and the latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't
we do both, especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of CS
and those of I* orgs are not fully aligned?

And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil meeting"
as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but
since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would ask.


>
> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist".  Nor did I say the
> "technical community" should take over from governments.
>

McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But
what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the
first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can
fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without
linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there
are direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice them
literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3
or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't
question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and
just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to
start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my
response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such
state of affairs has implications that you did not need to state
explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are
indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as
described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you agree with that (as
implied by your question), then my response to you was warranted. Note that
the said response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs than
it is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are
different.

Cheers!

Mawaki


>
> I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and
> regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in
> addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes.  I'm not
> willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can
> instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes.
>
> I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react.
> Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131024/0db60d48/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