[governance] IGF Planning Retreat

[Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku]

Dear colleagues,

Norbert hit the point. Paragraph 4 of CSCG Procedures for Civil Society
Appointments says:
" 2. CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS representatives if
more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to be involved in the
process, or where the number with a clear determination to be involved does
not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. (Others may have a
neutral or undecided stance) Where coalition members choose not to be
involved and a decision to proceed is made, their decision to do so will be
announced (if they so wish) as part of any announcement of chosen
representatives. The decision to be involved or not is the primary
responsibility of each constituency."
(http://internetgov-cs.org/ <http://internetgov-cs.org/procedures>
procedures)

To save precious time and energy, I think it's necessary to call for votes
right here for and against responding to the present request for CS reps.
35% of 5 (if "coalition members" means the coalitions that make up CSCG at
present) is 1.75.  So we need objection from only 2 coalition members plus
one neutral member (or 3 against?) to quit the process.

Enough of much grammar on this. That's my view.

Best,

CPU

___________________________________
Sent from Magnum 7X smartphone
On May 27, 2016 9:38 AM, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> > Boycott may not sound constructive. But, I see good reason to push
> > this. Sending CS reps, fine. BUT they should try to open the door
> > first and foremost.
> > Do that inside the room, open the door from inside. Otherwise, don't
> > participate.
>
> Just a quick note on CSCG procedures:
>
> So far none of the CSCG member networks/coalitions have announced that
> for reasons of the various concerns have been raised about the proposed
> IGF planning retreat, they wish that no CSCG selection process should be
> held. If this situation changes, that could potentially lead to no CSCG
> selection / endorsement process taking place. For details see point 2
> in http://internetgov-cs.org/procedures .
>
> There is so far nothing explicit in the CSCG procedures about dealing
> with other modes of boycott or threats thereof. For example, if it is
> desired that under certain circumstances (about which we don't yet
> know whether they will come to pass) the selected CS reps should
> refuse to participate, that IMO should if possible be clearly agreed
> with the candidates before they get nominated.
>
> The first step to any such stance would IMO be for e.g. IGC to take a
> clear stance on what they would like CSCG's stance to be in that regard.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20160527/507b0c12/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