<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1<br>
<br>
Thanks Joana for this really excellent report. I agree with what
Ian and Michael posted in response. I've already said that I don't
think we should rule out pulling out of this coalition/dialogue, if
we can do so in solidarity (ie. if they won't simply drag in some
other civil society representatives). But for now, as Ian
suggested, let's keep a cautious watching brief.<br>
<br>
In the medium term though, we are going to have to work out a way to
nominate civil society representatives - either to the
coalition/dialogue, or at least, to whatever representative
structures develop around the Brazil summit. As Best Bits we
shouldn't and don't purport to cover all of civil society, but that
needn't stop us from making suggestions.<br>
<br>
So, a priority that I would like us to address (along with the other
streams of work coming out of the Best Bits meeting in Bali - which
we are yet to properly document) is to develop concrete proposals
for civil society representative processes, which /may/ be needed
for the coalition/dialogue, and which will /definitely/ be needed
for the Brazil summit.<br>
<br>
This is /in addition/ to work needed to develop /substantive/
proposals for the Brazil summit. Both are important. So it is bad
timing that I am leaving for an OECD meeting tomorrow and that my
own contributions to this process may be delayed. But at the same
time grateful that we have such an amazing coalition who will be
able to address these urgent work priorities.<br>
<br>
The other outstanding question, as Joana alluded to, is /where/ we
debate and develop our proposals, and on this question I will have
another email to send soon about the open/closed list debate.<br>
<br>
On 01/11/13 02:34, Joana Varon wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">><br>
> Dear all,<br>
><br>
> Hi.<br>
><br>
> While the debate about the process for using an open or
closed BB list still remains, please, find below a summary about
what has been going on in the very closed list that was created
after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I* representatives, which I
have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina and Laura, please,
feel free to add other points. Also, there are others BB
subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may
want to weigh in.<br>
><br>
> I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I
went to that meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian
Summit. And since the meeting with the Brazilian government in the
IGF, the three of us, plus Carolina Rossini, were indicated as
liaisons to help facilitate civil society participation in the
event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the report, that meeting
took a different direction and was focused on building the
"coalition". So, in the near future, we should probably re-address
the issue of representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS
participation beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue to
engage.<br>
><br>
> *Summary*<br>
><br>
> After the meeting, held on Oct, 25^th ,a closed mailing list
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:i-coordination@nro.net">i-coordination@nro.net</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:i-coordination@nro.net"><mailto:i-coordination@nro.net></a>) has
been created for the drafting the concept note and debating the
name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the
following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco,
cra, auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2),
icann (2), arin (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc.<br>
><br>
> 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the
name and the difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is
less binding, the term "coalition" was dropped. Current proposed
name is: 1net | An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Internet
Governance<br>
><br>
> 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was
sent by Adiel, from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email
about the name, people got mostly focused in the name. The only
comments received are marked in the attachment as well.<br>
><br>
> Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no
government or representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue
to any extent. I've also sent comments regarding the fact that the
upcoming events were only events from the technical communities
and there is no language on human rights in the text, just on
business and innovation. No replies here received on these issues
whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for our
inputs.<br>
><br>
> 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move
fast. Today a thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the
creation of an interim steering committee (about20 people, as far
as I understood, the same as who were at the Friday meeting) which
will then liaise with their respective "stakeholder" groups.
Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that the list is
"receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from
business community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear
demarcation between the large group of people ready to engage into
the dialogue and a subset of it that will facilitate and
coordinate the whole process."<br>
><br>
> It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering
committee which raises questions about the composition of the
group (until now there is no balance in terms of number of
representatives from each stakeholder group). This proposal got 3
agreements and one point raised by oracle about
representativeness.<br>
><br>
> In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:<br>
><br>
> >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue?<br>
><br>
> >> Could this initiative be perceived as a
counter-weight to the Brazilian summit? ( There is no governments
or international organizations in the concept note. Carolina and I
made that point a few days ago, but it was not heard until now)<br>
><br>
> >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this
process? How?<br>
><br>
> Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in
our previous thread about the first report. Another report, about
our the meeting with the Brazilian gov is coming soon.<br>
><br>
> If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact
with: a) one regarding the Summit and the exchange of ideas with
the Brazilian government) + the other trying to reach a common
ground with the Dialogue. Sounds complicated if we don't use our
diversity in a kindly and comprehensive way.<br>
><br>
> all the best<br>
><br>
> joana<br>
><br>
><br>
> -- <br>
> -- <br>
><br>
> Joana Varon Ferraz<br>
> @joana_varon<br>
> PGP 0x016B8E73<br>
><br>
></span><br>
<br>
<br>
- -- <br>
<br>
*Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers*<br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br>
<br>
Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
knowledge hub |
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone">http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a><br>
<br>
@Consumers_Int | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org"><http://www.consumersinternational.org></a> |
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational"><http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational></a><br>
<br>
Read our email confidentiality notice
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"><http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality></a>.
Don't print this email unless necessary.<br>
<br>
*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://jere.my/l/8m">http://jere.my/l/8m</a>.<br>
<br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)<br>
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.enigmail.net/">http://www.enigmail.net/</a><br>
<br>
iEYEARECAAYFAlJzgucACgkQ9nWq4tKrIiDqnQCdHpiAZ1u0HLfUlzh4ONWWR/uD<br>
1qIAn2tB5t8VpaKM2PgGQzJEsQ3xBdZH<br>
=kELV<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>