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

parminder at itforchange.net parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Oct 26 05:00:06 EDT 2013



In fact our letter should stress that we are putting together 4 initial
liasons - from the Brazilian CS - to work to channel CS participation at
all levels of the process... (And also name the four persons we agreed
to). This is the meaning of independently organising ourselves.

It is that kind of specifics that matter most at this stage - when the
game has moved far further on from where we were when we first proposed a
statement.

>> 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.
>
> Hi Wolfgang
>
> Do you not agree that we have to strongly represent that civil society is
> able to independently organise itself - especially in the background of
> the still standing offer of the I* community to help organise it .... That
> was the brunt of the recent proposal of the 'coalition' from ICANN plus..
>
> What is wrong in claiming that we are independently able to organise and
> represent ourself?
>
> Will you please explain. Not to make this claim may be to agree that well
> we are fine with a non-gov stakeholders front that I* seems to be keen to
> be organising.
>
> I dont think empty platitudes and principles means much in crunch times
> like this - either we strongly tell Brazilians that we would like to
> organise ourselves independently, or we slip into a situation where I*
> does the non gov organising..
>
> Take your choice...
>
> parminder
>
>
>>
>> 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


More information about the Governance mailing list