[governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jul 18 06:45:25 EDT 2019
Dear Sheetal/ All
Some clarifications
I knew there was a conversation taking place among BestBits members. IT
for Change has been a founding member of BB but latter withdraw form
this designation (for reasons I am ready to share if needed) and
continued as ordinary participants. I deliberately stayed out of the BB
conversation on shutting shop, joining IGC, what thereupon, and so on. I
wanted those more closely involved to decide.
At some times there were conversations/ call that involved some IGC
members as well, especially IGC co-ordinators... I was unclear about
what this meant, but they appeared harmless, possibly involving
clarifications about joining IGC (for those, likely few, BB members who
were not already in the IGC). I watched it out of the corner of my eye,
expecting that anything really important requiring IGC membership's
attention will specifically be brought to our notice by co-coordinators.
Since nothing really much ever was, I felt things were going fine.
Even when I felt things were less clear then they could be, I did not
step in becuase I did not want in any way to muddy waters if BB people
wanted it to fold it up into the IGC. They were indeed welcome to do it.
Going further, I can even well understand and appreciate that, following
such a deliberate step, it is quite possible that some of these new (or
old ones from BB) members of IGC would, in time, like to get something
moving within the IGC. That would be a legitimate aspiration, of any
member of IGC, or a group of them.
Now, all this is quite well. But I could not stop myself when I read
that report from Arsene from their ICANN meeting, about elections being
held after charter amendment, combined lists of IGC and BB, and so on,
and also when no one else, either Bruno, or any other member of the
'calls group' said anything to the contradict Arsene's report. Do you
think it was misplaced for me to speak up at this stage ? (why I did not
speak earlier is already clarified above).
Is it wrong to ask questions like; who is asking for charter amendment,
why, what are the key objectives, what exactly has been found amiss with
the existing charter, and so on? Do not the concerned people have a
responsibility to respond to this? I'd call them the 'calls group'
because it is unclear which part was BB process, and which some kind of
combined process, and the latter with what IGC authorisation, etc...
And is it wrong to jump up when there was this entirely gratuitous offer
made of self-appointment to a 'leadership group', and then also
including along a colleague (from the same 'calls group', which
tentative term has no pejorative sense here -- i just use it bec I am --
and many others are -- unclear whether it was an internal BB process,
and if not what process really it was ) . What leadership group of IGC!?
What process is/ was that??? Do we still just sit back and not comment
and question?
regards
Parminder
On 18/07/19 3:13 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote:
> 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|
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190718/35e8ad03/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list