<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Can someone tell me one reason why the LOG
wants 1Net</font> to relay the names of 3 stakeholder group
nominees to them. Why cant they receive these names directly.
CGI.Br has much more resources and manpower than CSTD and IGF, who,
with very poor secretarial support, have done such a job of
receiving nominees names and forming committees rather well. And
from what I know 1Net really does not exist in any particular shape
or body yet.... There is simply no logic here, other than that
ICANN, with the 1Net front has been ramming its way into the
Brazilian meeting organising space, and LOG has been giving way...
Money, what I understand Fadi would basically be meeting LOG today
about, may be a factor, and I simply do not like the role of money
in public spaces shaping roles. But what is ICANN's reason? That s
the question....<br>
<br>
You want to make it more intriguing.... Though I dont have the time
to keep repeating things which happened in plain sight, bec as they
say you cannot wake up someone who isnt asleep... but , briefly<br>
<br>
1. At the IGF 1Net was launched as a 'movement', and rather
aggressively... They were trying to take so much control of the
Brazil meeting that Brazilian gov reps were visibly embarrassed, and
even upset....<br>
<br>
2. Sometime in Dec, 1Net coordinator announced that they will
appoint/ coordinate the non gov stakeholder reps to the Brazilian
committee<br>
<br>
3. A meeting of the Brazilian organisers on 27th Dec (?) told them,
and everyone else, no you would not do it, we will handle it
ourselves (there are mails to the BB list in this regard, which i
reposted 2 days back)<br>
<br>
4. Early Jan another meeting of LOG tells us, well, we have changed
our mind, and it is 1Net who will organise non gov relationships
with LOG (Carolina in a recent email has descried it as 1Net
filtering everything to 1Net)<br>
<br>
5. so many CS persons get together and decided in Bali that, no, CS
wont mediate its relationship through 1Net, but deal with Brazilians
directly, and gave 4 Liaisons that specific role... Slowly that
resolve disappears and the leadership who was supposed to assert
this decision of the 4 CS networks, seem to be itself getting
dissolving into 1Net, and so when the LOG turn around took place, no
one was complaining. <br>
<br>
6 Discussions are rife that 1Net will remain a standing platform for
non gov stakeholders, beyond Brazil meeting, and keep engaging as
one with global IG spaces... Everything that has been announced from
1Net side has come true. such is it its power, so, keep watching....<br>
<br>
7 ...........<br>
<br>
8 ..............<br>
<br>
Many other events making a rather intriguing chain... And you want
us to just be complacent, and trust everyone... <br>
<br>
When the UN but moves the slightest in its bed, we are ready to
develop all kind of projections... So many are here already
projecting what they are going to do in 2015, and what is needed to
stop them... And with ICANN (how much is it the US establishment?)
we should simply trust and wait, and things will turn up well...
Sure.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 10 January 2014 06:59 PM,
Adam Peake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:D6A5C0B1-E30F-453C-A5B1-00696ED797F5@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Parminder,
If 1Net is transparent in this process, just a coordinator and a space where stakeholders can discuss, while the important matters of content and themes, agenda, logistics, etc, are run through the committees established by the Brazilian organizing group, then I hope we will find the meeting in April is successful (as successful as it can be given the obvious constraints), and civil society will have contributed, been heard, been equally successful.
To be honest I don't know what 1Net's role will be, seems to me that the Steering Committee is there to sort that out, with stakeholder agreement of course. I don't believe 1Net is a proxy for ICANN, they have clearly had a role in its creation and organization, but what we make of it from now seems up to us and the other stakeholders. I hope I am not wrong in this, if I am then in a few months we'll have seen a vary major failure in this multi-stakholder approach. I hope that doesn't happen.
Adam
On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:14 PM, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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...
This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part.
Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others.
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...
parminder
On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote 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.