<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">The Brazilian organisers have our highest
respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when
Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest
broker, and with no axe to grind...<br>
<br>
This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty
part, but the 'axe to grind' part.<br>
<br>
Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of
the meeting, but as one among the others. <br>
<br>
What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to
organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not
just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the
global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the
IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by
the general civil society membership around... This is too
important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner
it is being slipped in... <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM,
Carolina wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FBD680F9-709A-4ECB-93A4-42A837C702AE@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">+1 on Adam
Sent from my iPhone
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp"><ajp@glocom.ac.jp></a> wrote:
Hi Ian,
You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much.
However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done.
First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust.
If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion:
1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc)
2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above?
3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent.
4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time.
Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks.
If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes.
(writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent)
Adam
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now.