[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Oct 24 23:30:15 EDT 2013 

However, it must be said that immediate critical responses like Jeremy's 
email, and others supporting it, did make a significant difference. The 
term ' a new coalition' seems to have been withdrawn in the favour of a 
more neutral one - a new platform..... And the condition of having to 
swear by a certain MS-ist ideology is also withdrawn, and the only need 
is that one should be willing to engage with the emerging effort to 
address global IG in a meaningful way..

parminder

On Friday 25 October 2013 08:09 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Mawaki
>
> Sorry not to see this earlier.  Events have overtaken things in the 
> meanwhile, we met with Fadi and it was useful, so there's not much 
> point spending cycles deconstructing the misconnects at this point.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
> On Oct 24, 2013, at 5:50 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com 
> <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Bill,
>>
>>     On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake
>>     <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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/20131025/1b3e0702/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

More information about the Governance mailing list