<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">John<br>
<br>
Thanks for your response and the information you have shared...<br>
<br>
I can of course agree with you that 1Net, not yet having any clear
purpose or structure in place, should hardly be in a position to
strongly seek anything...<br>
<br>
However, the plain and visible fact remains that 1Net has been
given a very important/ central role in organisation of 'Brazil
meeting', despite,<br>
<br>
1. claims by Brazilians at and since Bali that it is they and they
alone who are organising the meeting, as a neutral trusted broker
and so on, while all others are 'equally' welcome....<br>
2. clear requests, made</font><font face="Verdana"> formally</font><font
face="Verdana"> by civil society, that they have no intention to
go through 1Net in terms of its involvement in the Brazil
meeting...<br>
<br>
How does one get conferred such a role, against such adverse
circumstances? No one for instance approached Civil Society
Internet Governance Caucus to take up such a central role! <br>
<br>
I think it clearly follows that if 1Net is not 'seeking' anything,
there are some extremely, repeat, extremely, powerful people
seeking such a role for 1Net.... I leave people to make their own
guesses who these powerful people might be.... But this fact
certainly puts 1Net is a certain perspective, which at the very
least seems to compromise its supposedly open, bottom up,
'movement' character - with which kind of declarations it was
launched... <br>
<br>
Even before a structure - supposedly, bottom up, participative etc
- is built for 1Net, some powerful people seem already convinced
(rather, 'know') about its role, purpose, and, I dare extrapolate,
even the directions that it will lead to, to be so confident to
be be aggressively pushing it to have such a central role in
organising the Brazil meeting.... <br>
<br>
I can see no other reason why (specific motivations) and how (the
power of those so motivated) was, for instance, civil society
denied its right to decide the manner of its participation in the
Brazil meeting...<br>
<br>
If 1Net is to become the front of such non transparent motivations
of some powerful players, it puts an unfortunate shadow on its
genuine possibilities, al least some of which I could see and
appreciate. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 27 December 2013 01:03 AM,
John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:409CC9E0-B303-4DE7-949F-692F477A2EB2@corp.arin.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
On Dec 26, 2013, at 2:04 PM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">...</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">The
current meeting seems to have gone back on all those
'right decisions' and allowed ICANN and 1* the central
role that it had always been seeking in the forthcoming
meeting.
<br>
<br>
This is my honest reading of what happened. But I may be
over reacting. I am happy to be corrected by anyone..</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Parminder - </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I appreciate you sharing your perspective of events, as it is
helpful. I do want to correct </div>
<div>one assertion made in the above - </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> "... and allowed ICANN and 1* the central role that it
had always been seeking </div>
<div> in the forthcoming meeting. "</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Given that the I* were informed by Fadi about the Brazil
meeting and 1net's role well</div>
<div>after the Montevideo Statement, I do not know how either
"1net" or the I* leaders could</div>
<div>have been "seeking" anything... I will admit to probably as
much surprise as anyone </div>
<div>else on this list, but it is what it is.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating
committee, I know of no mechanism </div>
<div>for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about
its role (whatever that may be)</div>
<div>and any assertion that the I* leaders might have been seeking
a role in a meeting which</div>
<div>which wasn't even conceived of (let alone discussed) at the
time of our gathering in </div>
<div>Montevideo is invalid.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Disclaimer: My views alone. (As one of the I* leaders via my
role at ARIN, I was part</div>
<div> of the discussions that led to the
Montevideo Statement and the idea of </div>
<div> a 1net initiative - that predates any
discussion or announcement of the</div>
<div> Brazil meeting)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>