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

[parminder at itforchange.net]

>
>> (Parminder) 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..
>
> Norbert) 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.

If it were a technical hosting, there is no issue. I think BestBits list
for a long time ran on IGC server (and due to some emergency is still
running there)...

However, here it seems that IGC coordinators are facilitating a sign-on
process, about which I have the following questions for the cocos

1. When was it decided that IGC could have a sign on process... And how
was it decided. I dont see a provision  in the charter, for instance. So
are we, as IGC, from now on also going to do sign on processes? Would just
want to know.

2. Who approached IGC cocos to help facilitate the sign on process. I
means on whose behalf is this process being conducted. (I already asked
this question earlier.)

>
> 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,

Since the earleir IGC process, a few weeks back, was interrupted for more
info and f2f meetings, why cant we just post the present statement, which
is almost agreeable to most, for some few changes that may come, and then
see consensus or rough consensus.

As for the 'extra-ordinary' situation, I had asked if there was a deadline
for sign ons and I am told there is none, which only means that the issue/
delivery of statement to the addressed parties isnt imminent, at least not
immediately, as in tomorrow or so.

I think we should follow proper IGC processes.

parminder


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