[governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel

Sun Jan 12 13:04:58 EST 2014

I agree with you. I consider that the end users in particular (who in the
final analysis provide most if not all of the funding) are shamefully
ignored. But in that case we should surely be discussing how - process -
instead of who - personalities. Ian tried to initiate something like this.
And for this meeting the process discussion would seem to have no direct
relevance since it would appear that the final selection will be made by
the conveners of the meeting - who are not us..

On 12 January 2014 11:32, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Deidre and all,
>
>
>
> The “who” in terms of these committees matters a very great deal in
> determining the “what” of the expressions that are allowed to appear
> because the “who” on these committees provide the framing of the questions
> which will be discussed and thus the determination of those points of view
> which are “acceptable” and those which fall outside of those norms.
>
>
>
> The Community Informatics community in large part arose precisely because
> the “who” of participation at the WSIS consisted almost exclusively of
> people talking about other people’s work and almost no one actually
> speaking of their own work or of work with which they had a close
> association and direct sympathy. As I’ve noted several times in the past
> actual grass roots users or grass roots practitioners particularly those
> working with the marginalized were not present and most certainly not well
> “re”presented by those who did participate in WSIS.  Grassroots
> users/practitioners have had to live with the consequences ever since.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Deirdre Williams
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:13 PM
> *To:* Internet Governance; William Drake
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] [bestbits] emails to Adiel
>
>
>
> "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.
>  "
>
>
>
> The brouhaha over who is selected and how seems to me to be a wonderful
> example of the magical results of smoke and mirrors, and earns my
> (grudging) respect for the very clever strategy that started it all.
>
> Speaking for myself, as one who will be represented, at the moment I see
> very little chance of being represented at all. If you wish to represent me
> then you must take some trouble to establish what my position is on the
> various issues that may be discussed. The priority should be for the what,
> the issues and positions, rather than for the who.
>
> I suspect/hope that Bill's "infinitesimally" has wriggled its way somehow
> out of context.
>
> Of course if no representation is intended then the who becomes supremely
> important, since I must hope that my point of view will find its way to the
> meeting through the serendipity of "shared values".
>
> In connection with this I should like to second Ginger's proposal for
> facilitation of really effective remote PARTICIPATION for the Brazil
> meeting, and for as much of the preparatory process as is practical.
>
>
>
> On 12 January 2014 06:31, 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140112/92288eab/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