[governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects
sivasubramanian muthusamy (via governance Mailing List)
governance at lists.riseup.net
Thu Jul 18 20:22:14 EDT 2019
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 4:19 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com <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.
>
Agree with IAN. It is not really important to consider formalizing
coordination a pressing priority.
Sivasubramanian M
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>
> To: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Cc: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>; "Nnenna Nwakanma" <
> nnenna75 at gmail.com>; "governance" <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> 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|
>
> ---
> 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/20190719/fd24c068/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list