AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil]

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi Parminder & Norbert,

I disagreed with "independence". I understand partly your argument. But in my eyes this looks too short and includes the risk of moving into  an isolation. If you would have combined "independence" with "based on a strong mutual collaboration with other stakeholders" I could have agreed. But you didn´t. So the text as it stands is okay and should not be further challenged. 

wolfgng


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow
Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 07:54
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil]
 
Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It
> was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second
> sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the
> conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil
> society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the
> conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also
> specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely
> new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the
> willing' by the technical community. There is a need  therefore to
> clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov
> front' to be included but  *specifically about civil society in an
> independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*....
> 
> I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why
> is it not in the final formulation...

I agree with Parminder's point here, both in regard to its substance
and in regard to the process aspect. In a valid consensus process, such
change requests cannot be simply ignored: Change requests must be
incorporated unless explicitly opposed, and when a change request is
opposed, a valid justification for that opposition must be
communicated. 

> Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their
> official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so
> eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process..

Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host the
sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators jointly.
It was not a personal initiative on my part.

This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely extraordinary
situation.

> Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement
> on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become
> available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali.

So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the starting
point for a consensus process) for such a potential statement that
would be independent of the sign-on statement presently under
consideration, which I agree is imperfect both in regard to that
substantive point and also in regard to the process through which it
came about. However, in spite of its imperfections, IMO this statement
is much, much better than the alternative which would be silence from
our side at this crucial moment.

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