<div dir="ltr">I have just joined the 1Net list and have read up on earlier messages. <br><br><ol><li>I think that our Liaisons are still on the CS-Brazil mission. I do believe we this clear to Fadi. The Br4 were on a mission to liaise with the I* for the meeting in Brazil.</li>
<li>So it is only normal that we keep that line and inform the I* Coallition that the steering representation from CS on the 1Net itself is and will lbe different from the one on the meeting in Brazil.</li></ol><p>Happy to engage in this</p>
<p><br></p><p>Nnenna<br></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Anja Kovacs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anja@internetdemocracy.in" target="_blank">anja@internetdemocracy.in</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Joanna,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com" target="_blank">joana@varonferraz.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will also be of good help.
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>My apologies if I caused confusion on this. I do very much think the 4 liaisons from Brazil should continue doing what they're doing (and you are doing a great job at it)! The impression I got from your earlier emails was just that the 1net group is proposing all communication on the summit goes through 1net somehow, and that all positions taken by us should be coordinated with 1net, and this I don't take is useful. Did I misunderstand something?<br>
<br>Thanks,<br>Anja <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><p dir="ltr">All the best</p><span><font color="#888888">
<p dir="ltr">Joana</p></font></span><div><div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca" target="_blank">ca@cafonso.ca</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this "need"?<br>
<br>
[]s fraternos<br>
<br>
--c.a.<br>
<br>
On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:<br>
> I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider<br>
> scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones<br>
> currently indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.<br>
><br>
> But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need for<br>
> 2 set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for the<br>
> steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that this<br>
> network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated just<br>
> for the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate others,<br>
> including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?<br>
><br>
> If so, we are in the same page.<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
> Joana<br>
><br>
> On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca" target="_blank">ca@cafonso.ca</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca" target="_blank">ca@cafonso.ca</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our meeting<br>
> with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...<br>
><br>
> I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the four<br>
> nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation, not<br>
> necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who feel<br>
> unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which works<br>
> within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.<br>
><br>
> Can we dialogue on this?<br>
><br>
> --c.a.<br>
><br>
> On 11/13/2013 03:17 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
> > On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:<br>
> >> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:<br>
> >><br>
> >> - Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, particularly<br>
> >> business, remains calling meeting). For that, the dialogue, following<br>
> >> our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 representatives from<br>
> >> each stakeholder (civil society, business, technical community), to<br>
> >> identify 3 representatives to participate in the preparations.<br>
> ><br>
> > I don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as an<br>
> > interface between civil society and the Brazil summit. Thankfully it<br>
> > seems that the point has been made on the list that we have already<br>
> > appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the summit,<br>
> > thank-you-very-much. We should not allow the misunderstanding to<br>
> arise<br>
> > that 1net had any part in this appointment.<br>
> ><br>
> >> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to<br>
> establish<br>
> >> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials<br>
> >> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community. On my<br>
> >> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital<br>
> >> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of<br>
> >> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.<br>
> ><br>
> > So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from<br>
> yesterday)<br>
> > for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form a<br>
> loose<br>
> > peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives to<br>
> > other Internet governance processes.[0]<br>
> ><br>
> >> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business,<br>
> tech<br>
> >> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference<br>
> >> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list<br>
> >> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just<br>
> >> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a<br>
> >> coalition)<br>
> ><br>
> > And the website misrepresents this. It says, implicitly speaking for<br>
> > the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users, industry,<br>
> > civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations<br>
> - we<br>
> > are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed<br>
> multi-stakeholder<br>
> > Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."<br>
> ><br>
> > There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in<br>
> pulling<br>
> > out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for example the<br>
> > OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses for<br>
> > Europe initiative. I am not disagreeing with those who say "wait and<br>
> > see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave 1net to<br>
> > the private sector and tech community, who will certainly<br>
> overwhelm our<br>
> > influence in any case.<br>
> ><br>
> > [0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in a<br>
> > different thread:<br>
> ><br>
> >> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG<br>
> is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the<br>
> implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of<br>
> taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so<br>
> important for various of the actors involved then some significant<br>
> efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable,<br>
> effective and legitimate partner.<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,<br>
> > Malaysia<br>
> > Tel: <a href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599" value="+60377261599" target="_blank">+60 3 7726 1599</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge<br>
> > hub |<br>
> <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a><br>
> ><br>
> > @Consumers_Int | <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org" target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a><br>
> <<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org</a>><br>
> > <<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org</a>> |<br>
> > <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a><br>
> <<a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a>><br>
> > <<a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a>><br>
> ><br>
> > Read our email confidentiality notice<br>
> > <<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality</a>>. Don't<br>
> > print this email unless necessary.<br>
> ><br>
> > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly<br>
> > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For<br>
> > instructions, see <a href="http://jere.my/l/8m" target="_blank">http://jere.my/l/8m</a>.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>.<br>
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br></div></div>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<div class="im"><br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div class="im"><br>-- <br>Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br><a href="tel:%2B91%209899028053" value="+919899028053" target="_blank">+91 9899028053</a> | @anjakovacs<br><a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>