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.

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