[governance] Reviving IGC: Merging Bestbits in, IGF Day zero event and other subjects
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jul 19 00:10:04 EDT 2019
On 19/07/19 9:34 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> There is going to be no fancy 'leadership group'
>
> No one has mentioned its need, justification, etc.
>
> I dont mind Arsene and Bruno to continue till elections, and they should.
>
> Sala, you were the greatest proponent for early even intimidate
>
immediate
> elections. Now, you agree with Ian below that no "immediate coco
> election" "seems to be he most supported option"? Anyway...
>
> If elections are due, they should take place.
>
> If they are postponed, clear reasons may be described and action be
> taken as per.... Charter amendment is out from such a list of
> reasons... Website work is independent and nothing to do with
> elections (although remember IGC was never much about a great website,
> it needs to first gets its 'substance' right which is nearly at about
> 'zero' right now, but new things are always welcome, pl go ahead. But
> let not the website volunteer list become anything else meanwhile).
>
> Are elections therefore being postponed bec BB members (that are not
> already in the IGC) need to be able to get to vote (although no one
> has really explained why that such a tearing hurry to vote for what
> everyone agrees is likely a pretty small number, but anyway)? Pl be
> clear and specific in response -- both, the cocos, and those from BB
> who know about this matter. election postponement is a big thing.
> Thanks.
>
> Let us clearly be told why elections are being postponed... If the
> above BB issue, then we want clarity on; is BB closure and folding
> into the IGC decided, when would the non IGC members enrol in the IGC,
> any time lines etc for that..
>
> That alone is the clear issue in front of us, related to coco
> elections. So please convey clarity to the IGC membership asap on this
> matter, and I request cocos special attention to this
>
> Thanks and regards
>
> parminder
>
>
> On 19/07/19 4:37 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance
> Mailing List) wrote:
>> Ditto everything that Ian said.
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Jul 2019, 11:49 pm ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>> <mailto: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. 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
>> <mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>>
>> To: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> Cc: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu
>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; "Nnenna Nwakanma"
>> <nnenna75 at gmail.com <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>; "governance"
>> <governance at lists.riseup.net <mailto: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 <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|
>>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>> <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>
>
> ---
> 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/20190719/8c5b748f/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list