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

Sat Oct 26 05:07:01 EDT 2013

As I said in the meeting and in my mail mail: We have to do both. We have to bring our own house in order and develop strong, clear and constructive positions (independently) but we have also to signal clear that we want to cooperate with all the other stakeholders. You gave only one side of the coin, but the coin has two sides. I recommend to read Salas reply from Hongkong.

w

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: parminder at itforchange.net [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 10:10
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Norbert Bollow
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil]

> 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