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

[Norbert Bollow]

Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
wrote:

> If you would have combined "independence" with
> "based on a strong mutual collaboration with other stakeholders" I
> could have agreed.

That would have been a totally good solution from my perspective.

> But you didn´t.

I don't recall any consensus call of a kind that would lead to this
kind of fine tuning to resolve outstanding differences.

> So the text as it stands is okay and should not be further challenged.

I agree that the text on http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html is what we
have, and in fact I have been among the first to endorse it in my
personal capacity.

Also I'm not going to further challenge the specific steps in the
stumbling forward process that has brought us to the point where we
have this text. I do not want to weaken this statement.

However, looking forward, I think that for future sign-on statements of
international civil society, a well-defined drafting process (with an
assurance of due process and accountability) will need to be used.


Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> (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.

Nothing was decided besides hosting that one particular sign-on letter.

Seeing that in that particular situation there was a problem, Sala and
I discussed the situation and decided to approach Jeremy with what from 
our perspective was a reasonable solution to the concrete problem.

> 2. Who approached IGC cocos to help facilitate the sign on process.

As Jeremy has already accurately explained, no-one approached us; it
was our initiative to propose this solution.

>> 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.

I tend to think that that letter would have made sense back then, but
doesn't now. At least I don't see why it would still make sense now.

> 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.

In the first hours of the statement being online, I have personally
given a very high priority to updating the list of endorsements almost
in real time as endorsements came in.

What IMO matters for this kind of statement is to quickly get to the
point where it has enough endorsements to be credible.

This is the kind of statement which is effective through people being
able to refer to its URL. That statement takes effect through people
reading it there and seeing the endorsements. 

It is not a letter that gets sent somewhere at a certain time after
which signatures won't be used anymore.

> I think we should follow proper IGC processes.

In my view, the concept of sign-on statements is a reality that the
IGC can only ignore at its peril. We should figure out, ideally in
cooperation with other networks such as BestBits, what are the
reasonable and timely and cooperative and credible and accountable
processes for best making use of this tool for effectively
communicating the views of international civil society.

I don't think that it would make a lot of sense at the current stage to
(try to) amend the charter to define a specific process that the IGC
would then have to use in making use of this tool.

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