[governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jul 19 08:35:48 EDT 2019
On 19/07/19 5:48 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> Comments are inline:
>
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, 12:10 pm Akinremi Peter Taiwo,
> <governance at lists.riseup.net <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>> wrote:
>
> I can't agree more with Parminder points that IGC is not measured
> by website presence but of substance. Making IGC to have substance
> should be our main priority. Currently, we have *665* subscribers
> on the riseup mailing list, but not up to 10 names shows up
> frequently on the list. Safe me the question of "how", migrated
> members please.
>
>
> It is the right of members to not comment or lurk. Only those that
> voted in the last elections can vote on amendments to the charter. In
> other words the distinction is who can vote. People can lurk but vote.
Just to add in case the readers are not clear from the above;
Only those who voted last time can vote for charter amendments.
All members who have been members for more than 2 months can vote for
co-coordinator election.
parminder
>
> Maybe, we need to start asking ourselves valid questions as to
> whether others are not participating. To get us to speed, I'll
> suggest, if visible, that the coordinators reach out to the
> subscribers to confirm their interest and active participation. Or
> a kind of roll call that confirm members' presence. And BB member,
> if willing to be added to build a functioning and active list
> before any election. With that, the substance as mentioned by
> Parminder can be seen and restored.
>
> Regards.
> Peter
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 5:04 AM parminder
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> There is going to be no fancy 'leadership group'
>
> No one has mentioned its need, justification, etc.
>
> I dont mind Arsene and Bruno to continue till elections, and
> they should.
>
> Sala, you were the greatest proponent for early even
> intimidate elections. Now, you agree with Ian below that no
> "immediate coco election" "seems to be he most supported
> option"? Anyway...
>
> If elections are due, they should take place.
>
> If they are postponed, clear reasons may be described and
> action be taken as per.... Charter amendment is out from such
> a list of reasons... Website work is independent and nothing
> to do with elections (although remember IGC was never much
> about a great website, it needs to first gets its 'substance'
> right which is nearly at about 'zero' right now, but new
> things are always welcome, pl go ahead. But let not the
> website volunteer list become anything else meanwhile).
>
> Are elections therefore being postponed bec BB members (that
> are not already in the IGC) need to be able to get to vote
> (although no one has really explained why that such a tearing
> hurry to vote for what everyone agrees is likely a pretty
> small number, but anyway)? Pl be clear and specific in
> response -- both, the cocos, and those from BB who know about
> this matter. election postponement is a big thing. Thanks.
>
> Let us clearly be told why elections are being postponed... If
> the above BB issue, then we want clarity on; is BB closure and
> folding into the IGC decided, when would the non IGC members
> enrol in the IGC, any time lines etc for that..
>
> That alone is the clear issue in front of us, related to coco
> elections. So please convey clarity to the IGC membership asap
> on this matter, and I request cocos special attention to this
>
> Thanks and regards
>
> parminder
>
>
> On 19/07/19 4:37 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via
> governance Mailing List) wrote:
>> Ditto everything that Ian said.
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019, 11:49 pm ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Well its good to see so many people who care about the
>> future of a credible voice for civil society in the
>> internet governance field, even if there are big
>> differences as regards how to revive things in this space!
>>
>> If I may summarise:
>>
>> 1. IGC Charter revisions are not urgent. They should be
>> discussed down the track after a credible web presence
>> and leadership structure have been restored.
>>
>> 2. We have offers of assistance (including Farzeneh and
>> Jeremy) regards website restoration. There is no reason
>> why this cannot take place now with a small group
>> reporting back here. (see separate topic)
>>
>> 3. Regarding leadership. Many strong voices argue for
>> coco election now, others suggest a delay of a couple of
>> months until other matters are in place. I am not
>> convinced either way - do we have a membership list, for
>> instance, which is necessary for elections? If not, there
>> seems to be no choice but to delay. And if there is one
>> election now, there will also be another one in less than
>> six months when Bruna's term expires. So an argument to
>> do both together in a few months is reasonable perhaps. I
>> will be happy for whatever outcome the call suggests for
>> this, BUT::::::
>>
>> If there is not an immediate coco election, which seems
>> to be the most supported option, I believe it is
>> essential; we agree to an interim leadership group until
>> it is practical to hold such elections. Apart from Bruna,
>> capable names like Sheeta and Farzeneh have been
>> mentioned. Such an interim group is absolutely necessary,
>> I believe, if the group decides on the call not to
>> proceed immediately with coco elections.
>>
>> So I am happy whichever way the call determines on this
>> one: but I am not happy for there to be no action at all
>> to resolve this issue.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>> -
>>
>>
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "Sheetal Kumar" <sheetal at gp-digital.org
>> <mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>>
>> To: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> Cc: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; "Nnenna Nwakanma"
>> <nnenna75 at gmail.com <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>;
>> "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net
>> <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
>> Sent: 18/07/2019 7:43:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits
>> in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects
>>
>>> Dear Parminder, all,
>>>
>>> As you and others have pointed out, the conversation
>>> about closing Bestbits and requesting any members there
>>> who are not already on IGC to join IGC (aka 'merger' to
>>> some) has been ongoing for months. The information has
>>> been continually shared on both this list/among this
>>> community and on the Bestbits list. Anyway, we could
>>> have done more to reach out to key people and
>>> communicated things more clearly perhaps. That's
>>> something I've learned. We did try but we can always do
>>> more to communicate better.
>>>
>>> There are just a few things which Parminder you've asked
>>> clarity on, and what follows is my reading of things as
>>> someone who has been part of the relevant discussions
>>> from the beginning so I do hope I'm not misrepresenting
>>> anything. As Farzaneh was doing earlier, I think it's
>>> worth identifying what we agree on and then work through
>>> what we disagree on.
>>>
>>> /If there is anything more? If so, everyone involved,
>>> please state it out here, explicitly, on the IGC's
>>> primary working space. Why are we going in so many
>>> circles about it?/
>>>
>>> //
>>>
>>> /What process is being disregarded, the one about which
>>> yesterday Arsene reported that it was decided that
>>> elections will be held after (1) the IGC charter is
>>> amended (and I have been asking what is this, who
>>> triggered this demand, with what objectives, what
>>> justifications, and so on, and people simply refuse to
>>> answer), and (2) when their is a combined list (sorry,
>>> IGC is not a list, one has to individually take its
>>> membership with an explicit individual-based process,
>>> there is no merging or combining lists here) ./
>>>
>>> All that has been discussed, on both IGC and Bestbits
>>> lists, including by active, long-standing and even
>>> founding members of both, has been how to reinvigorate
>>> civil society coordination. It was agreed by those
>>> taking part in these discussions which have been open to
>>> everyone from the start (there is a whole archive of the
>>> discussions that have been continually shared on here
>>> and on Bestbits, including in the etherpad here
>>> <https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture>),
>>> that the existence of both Bestbits and IGC wasn't
>>> helping so Bestbits should close. As we are all
>>> sticklers for process (a good thing, in my opinion),
>>> this could not simply be a matter of closing the list
>>> and telling everyone to move off onto another (IGC) if
>>> they weren't already members. As I mentioned before,
>>> Bestbits was more than a list too. Instead, we had
>>> conversations about it, that lasted months. Some people
>>> even wanted to create a new group. We decided not to.
>>> Among some suggestions that came out of these
>>> conversations was the opportunity to revise the IGC
>>> charter. Founding IGC members were part of this
>>> discussion, nothing, and I repeat, nothing was decided
>>> or agreed in that regard. Indeed it would be bizarre for
>>> that to happen. Any such process would have to respect
>>> the IGC charter and involve all members. Of course.
>>> Anything that has been shared which says otherwise are
>>> simply unfortunate misunderstandings, and we should move
>>> on. There are no reverse takeovers taking place, no
>>> desire to rip apart the Charter. Respect for process is
>>> key. There is no self-appointed leadership from what I
>>> can see, just people trying to steer things towards more
>>> unity and less fracture.
>>>
>>> /Any newcomer needs just 2 months of membership to
>>> vote.. No one really is insisting that we hold elections
>>> like today . But this certainly cannot be the reason for
>>> a process that you / Sheetal are saying has been on for
>>> more than 6 months now. That would be so very
>>> illogical, no..... Is just the issue of eligibility for
>>> voting stopping the process, but why labour it over 7
>>> months when it needs just 2 months cooling period? --
>>> Although it does make me wonder, and I repeat, why such
>>> a strong focus on the coordinator election!! IGC is much
>>> more than that... Why such insistence!!? What does one
>>> read into it.
>>> /
>>>
>>> It may seem bizarre, but honestly, it just took ages for
>>> those in the discussions which have been open to
>>> everyone since the beginning to decide to close Bestbits
>>> as a 'solution' to a lack of civil society coordination.
>>> There were other proposals like I said, including
>>> setting up a new group. So here we are. 7 months later,
>>> with agreement to close Bestbits and not create a new
>>> list or do something else. IGC is more than a list,
>>> sure, but because leadership is I guess key to
>>> reinvigorating things, elections are seen as a way to start.
>>>
>>> Also, others have asked 'how many people are on
>>> Bestbits' that are not on IGC? Honestly, I don't know.
>>> Maybe its 2, maybe its 20. My reasoning is that even if
>>> one or two of those people join and have the energy and
>>> commitment to run for elections and coordinate going
>>> forward, we should wait for them to join. Do we have
>>> much to lose? David and Jeanette have pointed out that
>>> we could wait for an indefinite period of time and it
>>> would just be a for a handful of people to join. That is
>>> true, so we could undertake an exercise comparing who is
>>> not on both lists and reach out to them directly.
>>> Alternatively, we are planning to have a call in w/c
>>> August 05 (I will send the details soon) and we can
>>> collectively set a date then for the closure of
>>> Bestbits, requesting those not already on IGC to join.
>>> And then we'll be all having this conversation on this
>>> list, including new members. Once new BB members have
>>> joined (even if its just 2-3 people) we can then decide
>>> whether to hold elections right away or wait 2 months.
>>> Maybe everyone will want to just hold elections right
>>> away, including the handful of new members. Or maybe
>>> they'll want to wait. Also, we can discuss the day 0
>>> event together. If we don't do the closure properly then
>>> we risk relevant and interested people losing out on the
>>> opportunity to discuss these things.
>>>
>>> So, can we agree that we set a date and time by which
>>> members of Bestbits who are not members of IGC join IGC
>>> and then we set an agenda, and have a conversation about
>>> when to hold elections etc etc?
>>>
>>> Also, btw the day 0 event is from 16h00-18h00 in Room X.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Sheetal
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 09:35, parminder
>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/07/19 11:02 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>> What Sheetal says below is correct in my opinion.
>>>> We are in fact trying to merge BB and IGC.
>>>
>>> Only loosely speaking, formally from IGC point of
>>> view, there is no merging happening... Some new
>>> people want to join IGC, and if conditions are
>>> fulfilled they are indeed welcome.
>>>
>>> If there is anything more? If so, everyone involved,
>>> please state it out here, explicitly, on the IGC's
>>> primary working space. Why are we going in so many
>>> circles about it?
>>>
>>> Lately, two specific, and what I consider minor,
>>> issues have been stated.
>>>
>>> 1. Can enough time be given to elections so that the
>>> new members can go through their 2 month cooling
>>> period.... I said that can be done, and there has
>>> been no major opposition to it (Although, frankly,
>>> if you ask me, I really do not understand why this
>>> hurry and absolute insistence on voting right away .
>>> That should not be such a big thing. Cooling periods
>>> are there for a reason. People who havent ever been
>>> on the IGC need to observe, see and know and mingle
>>> before insisting on some absolute rights to vote for
>>> their choice of coordinator. So, why, really this
>>> insistence ? What is the plan? But anyway, I really
>>> said I am fine either way.)
>>>
>>> 2. What to do with BB's web archives, and again
>>> there is not much problem with it. Whenever we have
>>> a working IGC website, we can put them somewhere on
>>> it, no problem.
>>>
>>> What else? Is there anything more? Why dont people
>>> tell us clearly, rather than going in circles and
>>> creating so much confusion.
>>>
>>>> We are trying to create a more unified civil
>>>> society presence. We don’t do that by throwing up
>>>> procedural walls around this group.
>>>
>>> Can you be explicit? what procedural walls are
>>> blocking BB people -- other than those who already
>>> are there-- from joining IGC, ?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Face facts, IGC needs the people from BB just as
>>>> much as they need us. It is destructive, as Sheetal
>>>> says, to disregard the process we have been going
>>>> through to bring things back together.
>>>
>>> What process is being disregarded, the one about
>>> which yesterday Arsene reported that it was decided
>>> that elections will be held after (1) the IGC
>>> charter is amended (and I have been asking what is
>>> this, who triggered this demand, with what
>>> objectives, what justifications, and so on, and
>>> people simply refuse to answer), and (2) when their
>>> is a combined list (sorry, IGC is not a list, one
>>> has to individually take its membership with an
>>> explicit individual-based process, there is no
>>> merging or combining lists here) .
>>>
>>>
>>>> I hope I don’t need to remind people why a
>>>> significant chunk of civil society broke off from
>>>> IGC to begin with - but it looks like certain
>>>> actors are doing the reminding for me.
>>>
>>> Sure, Milton, since you are now going towards a
>>> confrontational abyss, please do remind us. (Btw, I
>>> was among the founding members of BB, and I remember
>>> you werent around that much in those discussions).
>>> In fact any coming back of BB member to IGC -- if
>>> you really think so --should perhaps be helped by
>>> visiting the original conditions of why they went
>>> away and so on... We are capable of an adult
>>> conversation here, and should not be afraid.
>>> Important public facts are always good to know and
>>> discuss. And then one may also discuss what happened
>>> with BB, whether they were able to achieve the
>>> objectives they set themselves for, if not, why, and
>>> what are the reasons of BB's dissolution and coming
>>> back to an IGC, which admittedly is far weaker and
>>> lost now than when they left it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is exclusionary to hold elections now, before
>>>> the newcomers can vote. Can someone tell me what
>>>> positive goal is achieved by doing that? Can
>>>> someone tell me what is lost if we don’t hold
>>>> elections?
>>>
>>> Any newcomer needs just 2 months of membership to
>>> vote.. No one really is insisting that we hold
>>> elections like today . But this certainly cannot be
>>> the reason for a process that you / Sheetal are
>>> saying has been on for more than 6 months now. That
>>> would be so very illogical, no..... Is just the
>>> issue of eligibility for voting stopping the
>>> process, but why labour it over 7 months when it
>>> needs just 2 months cooling period? -- Although it
>>> does make me wonder, and I repeat, why such a strong
>>> focus on the coordinator election!! IGC is much more
>>> than that... Why such insistence!!? What does one
>>> read into it.
>>>
>>>> Do some people like for IGC to be a small and
>>>> hostile place where they can be a big fish in a
>>>> small pond? I hope not.
>>>
>>> (Just to match) Or are some people planning to make
>>> IGC their private pond. I hope not.
>>>
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Milton L Mueller
>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 17, 2019, at 14:07, Sheetal Kumar
>>>> <sheetal at gp-digital.org
>>>> <mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that it is easy to join IGC if you sign up
>>>>> to the Charter. It's indeed pretty
>>>>> straightforward. However, what I don't understand
>>>>> is the disregard for a process that has been
>>>>> ongoing for months, about a large and until
>>>>> recently active splinter group of IGC (namely,
>>>>> Bestbits) which has since agreed to close and its
>>>>> members who are not already part of IGC 'join
>>>>> IGC'. Bestbits was not just a mailing list, it had
>>>>> an active membership, it had a functioning
>>>>> website, it had a steering group, it used to
>>>>> coordinate, and more. It also had its own
>>>>> membership of the CSCG and used to convene an
>>>>> event before the global IGF. And now it is
>>>>> closing. Who knows how many people who have been
>>>>> part of that discussion or at least following on
>>>>> Bestbits who are not on IGC would like to be part
>>>>> of the IGC elections? Whether its semantic or not
>>>>> to call it a 'merger', the point remains that this
>>>>> has been a discussion for a few months that
>>>>> should, IMHO, have an impact on when to hold the
>>>>> IGC elections. They don't have to, but I think it
>>>>> makes sense for them to considering the history of
>>>>> IGC and Bestbits (as a splinter group of IGC).
>>>>> Also, I'm not saying this because I want to run
>>>>> for any elections necessarily, I've only ever been
>>>>> interested a discussion towards a more impactful
>>>>> and coordinated civil society in this space. It
>>>>> just seems to make sense not to disregard that
>>>>> Bestbits discussion and to take decisions with the
>>>>> Bestbits discussion in mind (again, because of the
>>>>> history of the connection between Bestbits and IGC).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've looked at the IGC Charter and it says "Voting
>>>>> process: Each person who is subscribed to the list
>>>>> at least two (2) months before the election will
>>>>> be given a voter account".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, even if Bestbits members who are not part of
>>>>> IGC joined then they couldn't vote right away.
>>>>> Shouldn't we wait for 2-3 months? If there is a
>>>>> time sensitive reason not to, that would be good
>>>>> to discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>> For clarity, revising the IGC charter was only
>>>>> ever an idea, its not been agreed to anywhere by
>>>>> anyone. It's just something to discuss, further
>>>>> down the line. Perhaps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Sheetal
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 12:40, Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>>> <governance at lists.riseup.net
>>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we can pull off an IGC elections by
>>>>> Berlin IGF.
>>>>> Joining the IGC from BB should not be "a
>>>>> process".
>>>>>
>>>>> Once an individual decides that it is worth
>>>>> it.. it only takes a click to accept the
>>>>> charter and be added to the mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2 cents
>>>>>
>>>>> Nnenna
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:36 AM Suresh
>>>>> Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net
>>>>> <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Much to my surprise I agree with
>>>>> Parminder. If Bestbits is to be wound up,
>>>>> so be it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> After which, those from Bestbits who wish
>>>>> to caucus in the IGC please subscribe to
>>>>> the list and do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:
>>>>> *<governance-request at lists.riseup.net
>>>>> <mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net>>
>>>>> on behalf of parminder
>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>>>> *Reply to: *parminder
>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>>>> *Date: *Wednesday, 17 July 2019 at 4:50 pm
>>>>> *To: *Arsène Tungali
>>>>> <arsenebaguma at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>>, Sheetal
>>>>> Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org
>>>>> <mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>>
>>>>> *Cc: *"ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>>>>> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>"
>>>>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>>>>> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>,
>>>>> "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro"
>>>>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>>,
>>>>> governance <governance at lists.riseup.net
>>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Reviving IGC:
>>>>> Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event
>>>>> and other subjects
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/07/19 3:25 PM, Arsène Tungali wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point, Sheetal and I agree with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I had briefly discussed the election issue with Bruna during the last
>>>>>
>>>>> ICANN meeting and we agreed that the best time to conduct co-co
>>>>>
>>>>> elections is right after the merger step is completed, the new charter
>>>>>
>>>>> has been adopted and we have a unified list. I am sure Bruna was
>>>>>
>>>>> planning to report this to the list at some point, but here you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arsene
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure what you mean about a
>>>>> unified list...
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a clear, and rather easy, way to
>>>>> join the IGC, and it is up to to those in
>>>>> Bestbits and not already in IGC to take
>>>>> that route if they want to. Meanwhile we
>>>>> do welcome all civil society members
>>>>> adhering to iGC's charter (rather than
>>>>> insisting for, unclear and unstated
>>>>> reasons, to modify it).
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is really no merger involved
>>>>> here, even if people loosely use that
>>>>> language .
>>>>>
>>>>> I remain astonished about the repeated
>>>>> talk about a new IGC charter, especially
>>>>> as an already decided thing! What exactly
>>>>> are you talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I am further pained for you, being
>>>>> still perhaps an IGC co-coordinator, not
>>>>> at all responding to my clear email about
>>>>> how this elist is the primary work place
>>>>> for the IGC, and also an ex-coordinator's
>>>>> assent tp the sentiment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest we all plan to attend the call and agree on next steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can make whatever calls and agree on
>>>>> whatever steps you have you may wish to --
>>>>> that is no part of IGC's procedure, and
>>>>> would have no meaning or consequence for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Arsene
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2019-07-17 11:44 UTC+02:00, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> <mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While the closure of Bestbits is an internal matter for Bestbits, we have
>>>>>
>>>>> agreed for it to be closed and so I'd say any IGC conversations need to
>>>>>
>>>>> take that into account. We're at that point where the closure has been
>>>>>
>>>>> agreed but there are still people on Bestbits who are not on IGC but likely
>>>>>
>>>>> will sign up to be part of the discussions soon.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As such, shouldn't we wait for those from Bestbits who want to join to join
>>>>>
>>>>> and we can then get the IGC coordinator elections going? The call to agree
>>>>>
>>>>> next steps and make sure everyone is on the same page is going to be w/c
>>>>>
>>>>> August 5.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheetal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 06:29, ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruna,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On a more substantive matter -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you also advise us on how progress is going as regards getting the
>>>>>
>>>>> IGC
>>>>>
>>>>> Coordinator elections (which were due last January) underway? On June 26
>>>>>
>>>>> you advised the list that you. would be talking to Arsene and would get
>>>>>
>>>>> back to the list ASAP. Do you have an update?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <governance at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> To: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: 17/07/2019 2:14:13 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero
>>>>>
>>>>> event and other subjects
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree with Parminder.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019, 5:11 am parminder, <parminder at itforchange.net> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HI Bruna/ All
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good morning to all!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bestbits' merging into the IGC is their internal matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As for a day zero event at the IGF for the IGC, when do you plan it...
>>>>>
>>>>> Just Net Coalition has an event post lunch on day zero, and please
>>>>>
>>>>> ensure
>>>>>
>>>>> that these do not clash. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While as a secondary or adjunct method call based discussions can be
>>>>>
>>>>> done
>>>>>
>>>>> among however wishes to do so, the charter clearly says that the main
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> authoritative space of IGC's work will be this e-list, which I request
>>>>>
>>>>> everyone's attention to.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks and best regards
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/07/19 7:32 AM, Bruna Martins dos Santos (via
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar*
>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5
>>>>> 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> To unsubscribe:
>>>>> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Sheetal Kumar*
>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D
>>> 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
>
>
> --
> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>
> Peter Taiwo Akinremi
> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi
> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190719/a563cc3d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list