[governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel

Ginger Paque ginger at paque.net
Sun Jan 12 09:44:31 EST 2014 

Thanks, Parminder, point taken. I did not mean to underestimate that.
Cheers, gp


On 12 January 2014 07:59, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> 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> wrote:
>
>> Hi Norbert
>>
>>  On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>> William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder <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)
>> IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org)
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the
>> Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org)
>> Association for Progressive Communications – APC (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>
>> 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’s the 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
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140112/4d013aeb/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

More information about the Governance mailing list