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

Sat Oct 26 06:14:58 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 -

Of course I meant, progress without cooperation 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