<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 20 November 2013 11:24 AM,
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJwbTiCwQaMe+Kh12Jwm_uzHUECkoBcUZ_gBQoJTDkTmKKfxhg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"> <br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <font
face="Verdana">Dear All<br>
<br>
There are strong indications from all round that
Brazil gov may just be taking the easy expedient to
channelise non gov participation in the Brazil meeting
through the 1net structure.... </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Sala: This is contrary to what I have been hearing from
various subscribers and members of the IGC and even others
within other civil society organisations. My sensing is
that there is desire to collaborate and engage. This is
obvious from the numbers that have subscribed to the
mailing list and also from corridor discussions and talks
via email or skpe. Please remember that in Bali, we did
not collectively agree that we would not engage, it was
supposed to be a strategy meeting. We can very easily take
a poll on the matter-</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We need to seriously separate two different issues<br>
<br>
1. Having CS representation for a role in Brazil meeting being
channelled/ fronted by 1net<br>
2. Having a lateral engagement with 1net, for a purpose of dialogue
and so on<br>
<br>
My response to 1 above is *no* and to 2 above is *yes*. <br>
<br>
So please indicate responses to 1 and 2 separately.... We have kept
up this confusion for more than a month now. When at Bali i asked
for an 'independent' CS liason to Brazil meeting, Wolfgang
propositioned, in my view, very much out of context, that
'independent' is not good and we should work together. Such a
confusion is carrying on, effectively paralysing us, and making us
completely ineffective. <br>
<br>
Sala, please mention your response to 1 and 2 above separately... I
gather from your emails below that your response to both is yes...
If so, that is a clear view. Mine is as indicated above... And my
impression from emails and f2f discussions among IGC and BB members
has been that while they are fine to do 2 above the overwhelming
response to 1 above is negative.... But happy for people to state
their views now... And as you suggest, yes we can have a poll... but
seperately on 1 and 2...<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJwbTiCwQaMe+Kh12Jwm_uzHUECkoBcUZ_gBQoJTDkTmKKfxhg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Verdana">And
we know that there was overwhelming feeling among
civil society that this should not be allowed, and we
should have a direct liason. (Civil society outside
the active IG kind is even more strongly of this
view). Are we know willing to come out of our
paralysis?<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> Sala:
<div>Firstly apologies for the delayed response, have been
busy catching up with work and emails and conference
matters as there are some substantive public policy
issues affecting global public interest that demanded
our immediate attention.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One of the reasons why we were initially cautious
about INET was because it was not clarified to us at the
time what INET was supposed to be which caused most of
us if not all to be suspicious about the process and
allude "power grabs". From discussions with some of the
I Star group, not ICANN, I was told that this was simply
designed to be a blanket slate where stakeholders and
different constituencies can come to the table and draft
and design the Agenda and ensure that they field their
representatives to the table. We all come as equals to
the table. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><strong>Reasons Why We should Engage with I star
group and come to the Table at I Net</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Firstly, kindly note that the I NET is like an open
virtual forum and it is not owned by any one single
group or constituency. Secondly, in a world where we
know that enhanced cooperation is critical in
development and addressing concerns affectng global
interest, it makes sense to work towards building
bridges. We need to work towards engaging with other
constituencies in an intelligent and rational manner.
To not engage is to effectively render our voice
meaningless. Advoacy has to be strategic and directed
and we need to come alongside other communities and
add our diversity and voices.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Government of Brazil would be innundated with
hundreds of voices if there were no effective
mechanism to channel the voices to her in the course
of organising a Global Conference. To this end, I
would strongly recommend that we engage. There are
some of you who sit on the Working Group on Enhanced
Cooperation (WGEC) so enhanced cooperation should be
practised. We must reach beyond ourselves, find
strength in our values and character and engage. We do
not need to be abrasive to be good advocates. To reach
out, we must first engender the confidence in those
that we are reaching out to. This does not mean
compromising our values and principles but rather it
means that we need to build strong relationships where
we can encourage dialogue. I have absolute faith that
when we come to the table in INET our voices will be
heard. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Right now we do not have much time as Brazil draws
nigh and we need to accelerate our preparations. As
per my previous update a few hours ago (yesterday as
it is now 2:40am as I write this to you), civil
society organisations heads are discussing mechanisms
for selection of civil society representatives, noting
that we all have diverse selection processes with the
IGC using NomComs etc. You can respond to my other
email if you have ideas about processes and
mechanisms. For now, please</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Values command the respect of our colleagues as
engagement and negotiations will play out not just in
2014 but beyond. Because of this, we should not
isolate ourselves but dialogue and engage. My advice
would be to come to the table in the I star engagement
and lend our voice as civil society. To lend our
voices as civil society, we need to engage with all
these stakeholders. The key thing here is to ENGAGE.
There will be certain positions that we will need our
alliances to agree on, in terms of key positions on
things like the preservation of an open and free
internet as mandated by our Charter. </div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Verdana">
<br>
Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want
direct and independent liason to the Brazil meeting
and want to independently present our liasons directly
accountable to us and not through the 1net or
whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names
we have as our liasons... We do not have to change/
expand that liason structure. Havent the time for
that. (and if some people insist, we can always do it
a bit later). The following is a quick text
suggestion... <br>
<br>
</font>Sala: The letter that is being prepared names the
liaisons that we will have on the ground in Brazil. The
Government of Brazil will be working with diverse
stakeholders and it has to come through a mechanism
which happens to be the INET. The INET is not owned by
any of the I*. It was designed to bring everyone as
equals where all constituencies can organise themselves
and the way forward. The only thing I had an issue with
was that the mechanisms for participating were recently
prepared and sent to us. It is unclear at this stage,
whether that was designed by the Brazil Government
although I have been informed that it was designed by
the Brazil Government. There is nothing stopping us from
commenting on the structure of the mechanism but we
should do so not with the intention to subvert the round
table allowing for diverse constituencies to come to the
table (there is a world bigger than civil society) as
the pressing deadline will demand extensive coordination
in streaming things and preparing for San Paulo.
<blockquote><font face="Verdana">We of the undersigned
civil society networks and groups are pleased to
note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of a
............. (put the official name of the meeting
here) . We are happy to help the government of
Brazil organise this meeting and take it to a
successful conclusion. We have chosen the below
mentioned four persons to be our liason to the
Brazilian government and also to be put on any
steering committee that may be set up.</font><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote> <font face="Verdana">....</font><br>
<font face="Verdana">......</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">......</font><br>
<font face="Verdana">...... the names of our four
Brazilian liasons </font><br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Please include our above
representatives in all meetings, formal
presentations etc that will henceforth take place
regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on
the future of the Internet.....</font> We will route
our inputs to the organisation of this meeting through
these reps...<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Signed</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana"><br>
(ends)<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></font> </div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>