[governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects

[Sheetal Kumar]

Dear Parminder,

Thanks for the clarifications and explanations of why you hadn't been
directly involved in the conversations earlier, which definitely helps me
understand better. I don't think it's wrong to ask the questions you asked,
and I hope that my email helped clarify that there is no attempt to skirt
around process and do things in an illegitimate fashion. The suggestion of
a 'leadership group' I thought was just a suggested way of, ironically,
introducing some clarity and legitimacy to an informal voluntary steering
process underway. I appreciate its been a messy and unclear process at
times but hopefully we can move forward with the trust that no one is
trying to drive things away from clear and transparent processes and the
Charter.

As for the day zero event, I'll get in touch with the IGF Secretariat to
find out if anything can be done!

Best

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 11:45, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> on behalf of parminder <
>>>> parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> *Reply to: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> *Date: *Wednesday, 17 July 2019 at 4:50 pm
>>>> *To: *Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, Sheetal Kumar <
>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org>
>>>> *Cc: *"ian.peter at ianpeter.com" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "Salanieta T.
>>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>, governance <
>>>> 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> <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
>>>>
>>>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <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> <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>
>>>> To: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>
>>>> Cc: "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net> <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> <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
>> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <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|
>
>

-- 


*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/20190718/4cf4e6cc/attachment.htm>