Hello, On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> wrote: <snip> > > 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including CS > proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both President > Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. > > Apologies for the cross-post. I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move ICANN away from unilateral oversight: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Anja Kovacs <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> > I do want to >> > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and >> > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. >> >> *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. >> >> > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points >> > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the consensus >> > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have expressed >> > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I think it >> > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been >> > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. >> >> The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”. >> That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are strongly >> in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain >> opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend political >> capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a decision >> in favor. >> >> Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not >> expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a >> consensus decision from being reached. >> >> If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in favor, most >> organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would never >> reach any decisions. >> >> > we are effectively working against each other here. >> >> Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some of >> the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to >> discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action, I >> strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working >> against each other here”. >> >> In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign it >> does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits >> action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter it >> could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter it >> could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do >> understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. >> >> > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an >> > alternative. If that could be a solution for all >> >> No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since I've >> already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present >> letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat >> them again. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> [log in to unmask] >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > [log in to unmask] > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >