[governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jul 18 04:35:04 EDT 2019
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>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190718/03a15983/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list