[governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel

Sun Jan 12 08:59:55 EST 2014

On Sunday 12 January 2014 07:07 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> Two things Bill said really resonated with me:\

>
>
> --'Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as agreeing'

Ginger,

This is misleading.... The issue of civil society taking an active 
direct role in Brazil meeting was discussed for a long time of IGC and 
BB lists before and after Bali... And no one objecting to the what 
looked like emerging consensus that civil society should be there 
directly, in an active role... But fine, I am ready for people to 
re-decide on this issue. But dont take it to be a non important issue.

>
> --'BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here is 
> who is on these two conference committees, a matter of infinitesimally 
> less importance than formulating substantive inputs on the meeting 
> agenda items.

IF it is as you say as above..

1. Why is 1Net, or someone on 1Net's behalf, so insistent to take the 
single conduit role... (Going to the extent to getting reversed an 
earlier decision of LOG announced late Dec by Carlos on this list). Let 
its leave it as so many in CS want it to.... As Is should should the 
burden of giving way be always on the CS...

2. No, it is not just about 2 conference committee... it is going to be 
about participant lists (as per current info, the meeting is by 
invitation), and most importantly it is to be about substantive inputs 
and framing final outcomes, which is the big game (and perhaps a lot of 
other meeting related things) ............ Can civil society also 
sometime be strategic!

parminder
>
> Ginger says:
> Someone else said something like--'not everyone was in Bali'...
>
> Adam and others have shown great common sense, saying in that it is 
> time to work constructively and move on.
>
> Now that we know what the two main themes are going to be, we can 
> start work on substantial input, so  our representatives have 
> something to take to the table.

>
> Cheers,
> Ginger
>
>
>
> It seems, as others.'
>
>
>
>
> On 12 January 2014 04:31, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com 
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Norbert
>
>     On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
>     <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>
>>     William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>     On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder
>>>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>>     wrote:
>>>
>>>>     On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     However, before the message that the meeting would now be an
>>>>>     LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request.
>>>>>     As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have
>>>>>     insisted on dealing directly with the LOC,
>>>>
>>>>     Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate
>>>>     our participation when we expressly decided against it..
>>>
>>>     For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in
>>>     agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us
>>>     both :-)
>>>
>>>     Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist
>>>     on dealing directly with the LOC
>>
>>     The November 25, 2013 letter on this topic, which is available online
>>     at http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ is signed as follows:
>>
>>     Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:steering at lists.bestbits.net>)
>>     IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org <mailto:info at irpcharter.org>)
>>     Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the
>>     Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:coordinators at igcaucus.org>)
>>     Association for Progressive Communications – APC
>>     (anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>)
>
>     Thanks
>
>>
>>     In case anyone cares about what the formal status of this matter
>>     might
>>     be in relation to IGC: Strictly speaking IGC is not among the
>>     signatories of this letter, and it is not a statement of IGC, as IGC
>>     has not formally endorsed it. 
>
>     Thank you for clarifying this.
>
>>     The two people who were at the time the
>>     co-coordinators of IGC have signed it, and the contents of the letter
>>     certainly reflect what was in Bali the consensus of the people
>>     who met
>>     in person in civil society meetings to discuss these matters,
>
>     Per previous, I and others disagree with this characterization.
>      Not wanting to be party to more shouting is not the same as
>     agreeing, or expecting that what the people who happened to be in
>     that room said permanently committed the networks of which they’re
>     members to a position that could not be reviewed and agreed by
>     others later.  As you yourself say, IGC did not formally endorse
>     the position, and yet it has been routinely asserted since that
>     this is IGC’s position.
>
>     Parminder rightly asked for confirmation one way or the other of
>     the positions of IGC and BB and there’s been little response.
>      Maybe people don’t want to be party to more heated exchanges that
>     won’t lead to rough consensus, maybe they don’t care enough either
>     way, whatever.  While this floats unresolved, the LOG’s deadlines
>     for the provision of names get closer.  And as Hartmut said
>     yesterday on 1Net, the LOG wants
>
>     On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser at cgi.br
>     <mailto:glaser at cgi.br>> wrote:
>
>>>     So for the HLC, business, technical, CS and academia should each
>>>     submit 3 names via the 1net SC no later than two weeks from now.
>>     *Correct ...*
>>>
>>>     So for the EMC, business, technical, CS and academia should each
>>>     submit 2 names via the 1net SC no later than next Friday.
>>     *Correct ...*
>     *
>     *
>     If in fact any of the 4 networks still do not want to submit names
>     through the 1Net SC, while other networks are doing just that,
>     then they are putting the Brazilian LOG in the position of
>     deciding which nominations to accept from whom via which channels.
>      The LOG clearly does not want to be in that position, which is
>     why they asked people to sort this out and submit through the 1Net
>     SC (LOG didn’t say this because of dark forces compelling them).
>      At some point, someone has to decide who’s on the 2 committees.
>      Either it’s the LOG, which doesn't want it and on which the
>     networks don’t have representation, or it’s the 1Net SC, on which
>     most of them do.
>
>     And if it’sthe 1Net SC, there’s the further problem of does it
>     just pass on names from those networks, in which case other nets
>     feel may say they’ve been excluded, or does it have to select
>     among competing nets' nominations, in which case it’ll be accused
>     of abusing authority nobody granted it (see threads on BB and
>     1Net).  The 1Net SC should not be put in this position, either.
>
>     We’ve done many cycles on many lists and the clock’s ticking down.
>      Either we sort this out of we’ll have an overdetermined train wreck.
>
>     BTW it’s worth bearing in mind that all we’re talking about here
>     is who is on these two conference committees, a matter of
>     infinitesimally less importance than formulating substantive
>     inputs on the meeting agenda items.
>
>     Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140112/027c5e4d/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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