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

Sat Oct 26 06:12:13 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)

Yes, we need to mention that we will organise independently, which is not
there...

but we have also to signal clear that we want to
> cooperate with all the other stakeholders.

Cant see how we can progress with cooperating with all stakeholders -
which must be carefully demarcated from beong co-opted - whether by
governments, or business, or the technical community....

You gave only one side of the
> coin, but the coin has two sides.

The statement is not at all clear about independent organising and
representation - and putting forward a specific interim mechanism. That is
the need of the hour... So, it is the current statement that is giving
only one side of the coin.

parminder

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