[governance] IGF Planning Retreat

Norbert Bollow nb at bollow.ch
Fri May 27 17:27:58 EDT 2016

On Fri, 27 May 2016 21:41:23 +0100
Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku <udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, that reference to "coalition members" refers to the (currently
five) networks that are members of CSCG, one of which is IGC.

While I'm at this stage not able to promise anything beyond "we would
consider it", I think it very likely that if IGC were to take a
reasonable and strong position that this "IGF Planning Retreat" should
be boycotted unless some specific reasonable conditions are met, that
then JNC would be willing to support that position. In addition I think
it very likely that then at least one further CSCG member would at least
be neutral in relation to that position. 

co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)

> > 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

-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:

For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list