[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative

[parminder]

On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:24 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder,
>
> You ask for my opinion.
> I think that there are two discussions here, and they are becoming 
> confused.
> One is about the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), an assessment of its 
> value if any, and of the dangers it might represent.
> The other is whether civil society should engage itself in the NMI 
> process.
> Engaging in the process has nothing necessarily to do with approval of 
> NMI. The response of some people is "have nothing to do with it", 
> others prefer to retain a voice in the proceedings.
>

Dear Deirdre


> As for IGC -
> I have no legal training and cannot speak to "legality". My feeling is
>

As office holders of the IGC, you cannot say that you cannot infer from 
or interpret the rules of the caucus and you just speak from your 
feelings... You need to speak and act from your interpretations of the 
rules laid out in the IGC charter, which interpretation itself of course 
is subject to further due process.


> that the time to complain about a process is at the beginning, rather 
> than when it has reached a conclusion.
>

I completely fail to understand what you mean here... Cocos sought 
feedback on IGC's participation in the NMI. Many including myself gave 
feedback. Cocos are entirely within their right to seek any kind of 
feedback... Why and how can I object to that. Obtaining feedback does 
not automatically lead to conclusion of an IGC decision, unless of 
course co cos can consider it a consensus decision, which I am sure you 
are not calling it. Are you?

Relevant section from the Charter <http://igcaucus.org/charter>

"The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. 
When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be 
jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the 
purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming 
majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any dissenting 
minority view having been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus 
can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate 
minority points of view.
When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough 
consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus 
decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) 
hours of final discussion."

Have you not read this, or do you deliberately refuse to follow the due 
process?


> The Charter seems to me to give co - coordinators space to deal with 
> matters that are very urgent.
>

No, the charter gives you no such cover in the matter and contexts like 
the one involving IGC joining the NMI (first, this is not making an on 
the spot statement, second you have had weeks to seek this decision in a 
legal manner). You are passers trying to take the shelter of the below 
provision which, it is patent, simply does not apply.

"Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be 
discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision procedure 
outlined above will be required. However, there will be occasions /*when 
members of the caucus will be attending meetings and will be presented 
with the opportunity to make statements*/ that /*require a very quick 
response*/. In these cases, while it is still required that the caucus 
be informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as soon as 
possible the following rule may be applied when necessary." (emphasis added)

> The important thing is that there should be transparency and consultation.
>

The important thing is to maintain the letter and spirit of the rules of 
the group of which you have been chosen as an office bearer.
>
> In this case there were both - transparency and consultation - and the 
> consensus coming out of this is that IGC as a group prefers to keep 
> the line of communication open.
>

Consensus!!?? Are you declaring a consensus of view inside the IGC to go 
with the NMI .. Please make it clear, the term consensus has a clear 
meaning implied in the IGC rules.

> Mawaki has worked very hard on this as the IGC representative on CSCG, 
> and deserves our thanks.
>
> There is another place where the discussion is confused. The CSCG is 
> an appropriate context for discussion of whether or not civil society 
> should join with NMI,
>

No, I am not confused. This is the place for the IGC to decide whether 
it will like to join the NMI or not (one of the most important CS 
decisions and one of the most divisive one in a long time) and 
accordingly what would its rep communicate to the CSCG. CSCG just 
compiles views, seeks clarifications etc,  and acts accordingly. It was 
specifically made clear through interventions of many members during the 
last round of NMI related discussions in Aug-Sept that CSG has no such 
role of discussing such things by itself and deciding them (something 
which is clear in the formative documents of the CSCG, which should be 
known to all, and certainly to IGC's cocos.)

> but absent at least a rough consensus, and present such widely opposed 
> views,
>

Deirdre, I am not sure I understand you... You seem to suggest that 
there is some kind of consensus inside the IGC to join up with NMI but 
an absence of even a rough consensus overall in civil society to join 
in. But I saw at least as many dissenting views inside the IGC as 
outside in this matter, and so i am just not clear what  you are saying 
here.

> my own feeling is that, unless things change, the CSCG should now 
> withdraw from the selection process.
>
Feelings do not matter much I think, what Mawaki and you communicate to 
the CSCG does. (BTW, can you please share what precisely was 
communicated on IGC's behalf to the CSCG, as an IGC member I need to 
know).... As you would have seen from Ian's email, despite your feeling, 
but presumably based on IGC coco's communication to him, he has 
announced a process to cooperating with WEF's NMI to select civil 
society nominations.
>
> However the situation is changing very rapidly, and the nature of NMI 
> is changing with it.
>
> I hope very much that at the end of the day we won't find that we have 
> thrown out the IGC baby in the NMI bathwater.
>

A considerable harm would have been done to the no doubt already sick 
IGC baby if co-cos go ahead with their illegal act and an illegal 
communication of what has been presented as a decision of the IGC. I 
myself very much hope we will be spared such grave harm to the IGC.

parminder

> Deirdre
>
> On 25 Nov 2014 09:01, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> > I am sure that you know that there is a method listed in the IGC 
> charter to take collective decisions, and the method you are following 
> is nowhere close to that..
> >
> > In the circumstances, any correspondence you will make on IGC;s 
> behalf as representing an IGC decision on this issue will be illegal.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> > PS: Apart from the fact that you are simply not authorised to make a 
> decision on IGC's behalf, especially on such a contested matter as the 
> implicated one, the various 'considerations' and 'notings' that you 
> base your 'decision' on our either faulty or heavily contested, and 
> you surely know that.
> >
> > Interestingly, you have spoken of the need to take forward to evolve 
> and improve some sections of the Sao Paolo NM declaration, whereas a 
> lot of civil society supporters of the new NMI as well its promoters 
> inside WEF are insisting that the *new NMI is not at all a normative 
> venue but is bacially a platform for project based cooperation*. Now, 
> with such a faulty, or atleast contested, interpretation of the 
> central purpose of the new NMI, how can you reach a decision on the 
> IGC's behalf.
> >
> > This is just one of the faulty/ contested considerations that you 
> have relied on, and there are many others that I can refer to.
> >
> > In the circumstances, please withdraw your ' decision'. Also for 
> Deirdre's comments. Please let us know what you think of the legality 
> of this 'decision'.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday 25 November 2014 02:56 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> I have listened to your views, to your fears and concerns as well 
> as to your hopes and support. This one is really difficult a decision, 
> probably the most difficult IGC decision I will have to be involved in 
> before the expiration of my term.
> >>
> >> Taking into consideration all the responses, comments, 
> explanations, positions and advice received on the IGC list in 
> response to this call, whether under this email thread or in a 
> different one since this call has been posted;
> >>
> >> Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has also already 
> expressed herself on this question;
> >>
> >> Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest ones 
> expressed here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the presence or 
> participation of the WEF as such in the NMI than to anything else;
> >>
> >> Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking from the WEF;
> >>
> >> Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be 
> diametrically opposed to, or at least is different from, the open, 
> transparent, bottom-up and consensus-seeking mode of operation that we 
> value as civil society in the IG field and which ICG,br and IGC agree 
> to promote and uphold in carrying forward the legacy of NETmundial2014;
> >>
> >> Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in global 
> governance may be at odds with the goals of civil society, and as a 
> result there are most likely many questions on which civil society and 
> WEF may not agree on in one increasingly prominent area of global 
> governance to date (i.e, the internet governance area);
> >>
> >> Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be open to all 
> stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long as they accept to 
> live up to that openness and the other basic rules of operation 
> mentioned above from the CS standpoint, without the pre-requisite of 
> agreeing with each others on their worldview or even on a set of core 
> substantive issues;
> >>
> >> Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of something that 
> still needs to be shaped and can be shaped as have shown so far the 
> amendments that have been made by its proponents to their original 
> plans after CS feedback and criticism;
> >>
> >> Understanding that those amendments may have been made in order to 
> lure CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any type of outcome 
> on the long run unless CS remains vigilant and keeps fighting for the 
> outcomes it wishes for or supports;
> >>
> >> Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not perfect and thus 
> _at least_ some sections of CS do not consider it as final in the 
> sense that some of its provisions may still need to evolve and be 
> improved, but that would be better achieved through the continuous 
> collaborative work of the various stakeholders rather than by fiat 
> from one stakeholder (group);
> >>
> >> Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not lending 
> legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has already gained some 
> legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its co-founders and will further 
> gain legitimacy by having a delegate of the IGF-MAG join the NMI's 
> Coordination Council (assuming its current design is implemented)*;
> >>
> >> I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by 
> participating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society 
> nominees to the NMI Coordination Council.
> >> On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that 
> the CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions that 
> will be meant to make sure the continuous participation of the CS and 
> its appointees is subject to being accountable to their constituents.
> >>
> >> CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the 
> acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your participation in this consultation.
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Mawaki
> >>
> >>
> >> (*) Excerpt from the https://www.netmundial.org/
> >> The Coordination Council will have a total of 25 individual 
> members: 20 distributed across four sectors and five geographies, and 
> additional seats (one each) for the organizational founders CGI.br and 
> ICANN; one for the World Economic Forum in its role of supporter of 
> the Initiative; as well as one seat each for the IGF Multistakeholder 
> Advisory Group (MAG) and the technical community (I* group).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141126/0ef830e5/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