[governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jul 18 07:13:16 EDT 2019
On 18/07/19 3:13 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote:
> snnip
>
> Also, btw the day 0 event is from 16h00-18h00 in Room X.
>
Unfortunately, JNC event is planned 1400-1800 hrs.. Is it possible to
ask the CS event to be done 1200-1400 or something, if possible, so that
all of us can attend it? thanks, parminder
> 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/20190718/9a89a390/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list