[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

Sat Oct 26 04:15:32 EDT 2013

> I doubt Fadi or anyone else is tracking and recalibrating to the twists
> and turns of discussion on the gov list.

We can gladly increasingly get dismissive about ourselves as IG civil
society in general, and IGC, in particular, and that would only make us
more and more irrelevant!

If he does a meeting with
> someone and they say they don't like 'coalition' he may say fine let's
> call it a platform, whatever.  He just wants to move forward with people
> on board. If at some future point he refers again to a coalition, it won't
> be a matter of some change of position to which dark intent should be
> ascribed, but rather that he's forgotten this mattered to someone.  And
> having been in the meetings and had multiple chats offline, I don't recall
> any statement that everyone must subscribe to a certain MS-ist ideology,
> or a subsequent decision to withdraw this 'requirement'.

In the meeting on Wednesday, Chris Disppain clear said that it will be a
coalition of those who believe..... And as clearly, the next day, Fadi,
which changing the nomenclature from coalition to platform also clearly
said there was no other commitment to be made to be a part of the platform
that a willingness to engage.

So many of us were there at both the meetings, and if others did not get
the same impression they can chip in...

parminder

>
> The construct that there are opposing groups with fixed and antagonistic
> positions and this is all a matter of bargaining and concessions was not a
> shared reality and starting point, so he was a little puzzled.  But he's
> getting clued in.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2013, at 11:30 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> 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 term ' a new coalition' seems to have been withdrawn in the favour of a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 swear by a certain MS-ist ideology is also withdrawn, and the only need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> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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