<div dir="ltr">Hi Marilia,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com" target="_blank">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Rafik, in the diplomatic world, I think this panel is likely to have some weight, wether we like it or not. It is not CS's attention to the panel (or lack of it) that will make a huge difference, or will be a measure of the importance of this panel to next year's meeting. <div>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div>which diplomatic world are we talking about? some people already made comparison here to WEF to the global agenda council on internet <a href="http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-future-internet-2012-2014">http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-future-internet-2012-2014</a> and yet it is not relevant too. giving it weight looks like self-fulfilling prophecy . you gave importance to the panel so to its outcome and so diminishing the importance of direct inputs from the community to brazil conf.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div>
Once the panel is already created and once we already decided to engage with it when we put together a NomCom (I was personally against the idea of a HL panel too, but this train has left the station), we cannot pretend that this lack of due process is irrelevant or has "nothing to do" with us. That this is ICANN's turf and we should just disregard it. If we chose to give names, we should now go all the way and push for our names to be included, as promised. And we should make noise and re-asses our strategy of engagement if they are not.</div>
<div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>well, we decided to play the game because we went in hurry to appoint people, we didn't have time(or we didnt make) to strategize for it and it is too late to complain for sure but we can assess the situation.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div>And again, it is not about Bill personally or the invitation of some experts. This is about not finding the conditions no nominate either name from CS, while finding the time to invite experts of their choosing. Invited experts should go to London and make the best contributions they can. But I think they should also raise the point of the problems of lack of transparency surrounding this meeting.</div>
</div></blockquote><div> </div><div>yes we can raise the issue. but like other who experienced that before, we will hear just a sorry . </div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div> There is no clear information about the agenda or the admission of observers. We would not be complacent with such an opaque process in the UN. Why should be complacent now, when things under discussion are of interest to the wide community as well? Our decision about how much to engage and about the importance and value of this process depends on accountability and transparency. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>lesson to learn, never run to engage when you don't have any minimal guarantee about openness because it will be always too late to ask for that after you join . </div><div><br>
</div>
<div>anyway, we can ask for having the two representatives from CS there and about openness.</div><div>something we didn't discuss how our representative will "represent" us there and work to carry a community PoV in such panel?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Rafik</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br></div><div>Best</div><div>Marília</div></div><div class=""><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Rafik Dammak <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hello,<div><br></div><div>I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope that we wont regret such decision later.</div>
<div><br></div><div>we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process?</div>
<div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here.</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<span><font color="#888888">
<br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Rafik </div></div></div></font></span><div><div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com" target="_blank">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names.<div>
<br></div><div>I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier:</div>
<div><span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div><div>- the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance</div><div>- channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be created or clarified</div>
<div>- their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the CSTD ECWG)</div><div>- Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam House rules</div></div><div>And</div><div>- CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Marília</div></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div>Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div>> The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS<br>
> groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear<br>
> to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially<br>
> since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one<br>
> could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be<br>
> included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for<br>
> the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no<br>
> appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will<br>
> not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that<br>
> Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't<br>
> something that inspires confidence, is it?<br>
<br>
</div>+1<br>
<br>
Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society<br>
process through which names have been put forward.<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br>
<br></div></div><div>____________________________________________________________<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>.<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><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">
<div><b>Marília Maciel</b></div>
<div><font color="#444444">Pesquisadora Gestora</font></div><div><font color="#444444">Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - </font><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">FGV Direito Rio</span></div><div><font color="#444444"><br>
</font></div><div><font color="#666666">Researcher and Coordinator</font></div><div><font color="#666666">Center for Technology & Society - </font><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">FGV Law School</span></div><div>
<font color="#666666"><a href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts" target="_blank">http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts</a><br>
</font></div><div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666">DiploFoundation associate</font></div><div><font color="#666666"><a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu" target="_blank">www.diplomacy.edu</a></font></div>
<div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><br><div><br></div></div></div>
</div></div>
<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>.<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></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><b>Marília Maciel</b></div><div><font color="#444444">Pesquisadora Gestora</font></div><div><font color="#444444">Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - </font><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">FGV Direito Rio</span></div>
<div><font color="#444444"><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666">Researcher and Coordinator</font></div><div><font color="#666666">Center for Technology & Society - </font><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">FGV Law School</span></div>
<div><font color="#666666"><a href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts" target="_blank">http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts</a><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><font color="#666666">DiploFoundation associate</font></div>
<div><font color="#666666"><a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu" target="_blank">www.diplomacy.edu</a></font></div><div><font color="#666666"><br></font></div><div><br><div><br></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>