<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Thanks for the clarification, Carlos. <br><br></div>CS had already decided to engage with the Brazilian government directly, and for that reason had appointed its four liaisons (including yourself!). I think we were all most pleased when it was affirmed in the press release you mention in your message that such direct engagement would indeed be possible.<br>
<br></div>While it has thus already been confirmed that we will not like to use 1net as a go-between to select civil society representation etc, I would like to add to your message that nothing stops civil society from nevertheless discussing with/on 1net the substantive issues that the conference will address. In fact, I think it would be very valuable if we do so.<br>
<br>Best,<br>Anja<br><div><br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 29 November 2013 17:29, Carlos A. Afonso <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca" target="_blank">ca@cafonso.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Anja and all,<br>
<br>
As you know, CGI.br is now officially the entity in BR in charge of<br>
organizing the April meeting. A specific BR organizing group (which will<br>
meet for the first time this coming week) has been chosen by consensus<br>
in the last meeting of CGI.br, composed of board members of all sectors<br>
-- I am part of it.<br>
<br>
In our (CGI.br) press release we strove to avoid any indication of<br>
exclusivity for the channels to address the organizing group --<br>
otherwise this would be obviously against the efforts to ensure<br>
pluriparticipation.<br>
<br>
This *does not* mean we are discrediting the 1Net platform or group --<br>
to the contrary. Anyone is obviously free to choose through which group,<br>
movement or platform they want to reach the BR organizing group. If CS<br>
chooses to ascertain its presence via 1Net, fine with us.<br>
<br>
A specific email has been created to reach the BR organizing group<br>
(which will automatically copy the incoming message to all of us):<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:brmeeting@cgi.br">brmeeting@cgi.br</a><br>
<br>
My *personal* view at this point is that CS should concentrate on ways<br>
to participate in the first two committees (High-Level Multistakeholder<br>
Committee, and Executive Multistakeholder Committee), as the logistics<br>
committee will basically be handled by our team with long-time expertise<br>
in organizing international meetings in BR (ICANN meetings, the IGF<br>
2007, W3C in BR etc, to name a few), and the meeting's GAC is, well, a<br>
GAC :)<br>
<br>
fraternal regards<br>
<br>
--c.a.<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
On 11/29/2013 09:10 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
> While this letter has some value, I think we make a big mistake by<br>
> mixing up issues about 1net as such (who makes decisions) with issues<br>
> about the Brazil meeting, as this letter seems to do. Which are you<br>
> aiming for exactly?<br>
><br>
> If it is questions about 1net as such that this letter seeks to address,<br>
> I think these can be handled in a different, and more friendly way for<br>
> now. Why not simply raise them in individual capacity on the 1net<br>
> coordination list, rather than writing something as antagonistic as this<br>
> at this early point in time?<br>
><br>
> And if it is issues about the Brazil meeting it seeks to address, why<br>
> not simply inform 1net about our recent letter of affirmation of the<br>
> liaisons, and possibly request for a clarification as to why earlier it<br>
> was claimed all representation should go through 1net?<br>
><br>
> Beyond the latter, we don't really need anything from 1net on this<br>
> issue, as we have not considered that network as our main representative<br>
> or go-between for questions relating to the Brazil process in any case -<br>
> since Bali, we have agreed that that role will be played by our<br>
> liaisons. I feel this letter only confuses messaging on this issue.<br>
><br>
> At least as it stands now, not a good idea at all to send this I feel,<br>
> and as long as the purpose of this letter isn't clear to me, I can't<br>
> edit it either.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> Anja<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 29 November 2013 10:29, Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a><br>
</div></div><div class="im">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> In addition to the nomination of two additional civil society<br>
> representatives to the High-Level Panel in London, the other members<br>
> of the new joint civil society (steering|nominating|foo) committee<br>
> have suggested another letter needs to go out today to curb the<br>
> claims that the 1net dialogue has been making to having a special<br>
> role in relation to the Brazil summit.<br>
><br>
> Whilst I am personally a little ambivalent about the need for this<br>
> letter, I don't think that it would do harm to send it out (with a<br>
> few proposed edits that I have already made). If you would like to<br>
> look and propose edits of your own, I'll try to get them<br>
> incorporated before the letter goes out. We can also add it to our<br>
> own site for sign-on endorsements, like with the MAG and HLP letters.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/1net-reps" target="_blank">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/1net-reps</a><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
</div>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
> Senior Policy Officer<br>
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*<br>
<div class="im">> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala<br>
> Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br>
><br>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement<br>
> knowledge 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>
</div>> <<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>
><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>
<div class="im">> print this email unless necessary.<br>
><br>
</div>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly<br>
<div class="im">> 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>
</div>> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>.<br>
<div class="im">> 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>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
> The Internet Democracy Project<br>
><br>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br>
</div>> <a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a> <<a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">http://www.internetdemocracy.in/</a>><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>The Internet Democracy Project<br><br>+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br><a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>