<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 10 January 2014 10:36 PM,
Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHBcOAkiEJbKxKJFpi3KakMqsxOc5rAUp_1cVdFPA-d_zw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Dear all,<br>
<br>
As I agree that the exact relation between 1net and the
organisation of the Brazilian meeting remains a topic of
considerable confusion (including on the 1net email lists),
I have requested that the 1net steering committee seeks
clarification from the LOC on what its expectations
vis-a-vis 1net are once the Committees are in place. If the
LOC has no further expectations at that point, and if the
1net steering committee also sees no role for itself, the
current tension will automatically defuse, as 1net would
then automatically move into the background, at least where
the organisational aspects of the meeting are concerned (it
would hopefully still contribute to the substance!). The
committee appointments should be known in about 5 days time.
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>If the LOC does have further expectations, I think that
time would be a good moment to more formally reassess our
stance - through whatever process deemed most appropriate.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Anja<br>
<br>
I am sure you have followed the facts of the case whereby it has not
been what LOG expected of 1Net, but what 1Net, or whoever drives
1Net, has consistently and insistently tried to extract from LOG...
you know that 1Net begun even in Bali to assume roles about the
Brazil meeting which made Brazilians extremely uncomfortable, and
that then in Dec Adiel made the unilateral declaration that 1Net
will be the conduit to Brazil organising committees, whereby
later on 27th dec LOG pushed 1Net back and announced more or less
that Adiel's announcement was wrong and unauthorised and that LOG
will directly deal with different stakeholder processes... whatever
happened between that meeting and the latest LOG meeting in the
first week of Jan, but then 1Net was again the one conduit... <br>
<br>
Why do you think we should ignore all this publicly known stuff and
innocently assume that it is LOG which is pressuring poor 1Net into
different roles. This is pretty strange to me...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJqNAHBcOAkiEJbKxKJFpi3KakMqsxOc5rAUp_1cVdFPA-d_zw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Whatever happens, if at some point it is decided that
working through the 1net SC is acceptable on some issues in
the preparation for this event, I disagree that that means
1net will automatically become the default platform for all CS
representation in the future, as some seem to fear. The exact
shape that 1net will take is something that is still to be
determined, and it is up to all of us to provide input into
that - and up to us as 1net SC members from CS to make sure
that you all remain informed of any relevant proposals etc. so
that we can collectively frame timely responses as needed. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>FYI, the archives of the 1net SC mailing list are public,
and can be accessed here: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/">http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/</a><br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>Best,<br>
Anja<br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 10 January 2014 20:09, Jeremy
Malcolm <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target="_blank">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:18 pm, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font
face="Verdana">I just want others to tell
their clear views as well.... Not tell us that
well this is what has already happened and
so.... But what is their preferences (and what
was it at Bali, and if there is a change of
view, some clarification will be extremely
helpful).<br>
<br>
I also agree with Bill that we should stop
causing confusion, and clearly arrive at a
view and tell it to the outside world.<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>Sorry for the apparent confusion. The process has
certainly been made clear to Adiel, to the LOG, and we
thought it has also been made clear to the respective
lists, but evidently not. So let me restate my
understanding of it:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The 1net representatives are separate from the
Brazil meeting representatives, because 1net aims
to be an ongoing dialogue whereas the Brazil
meeting is a discrete event.</li>
<li>Following from point 1, it was never stated or
anticipated that the 1net steering committee reps
would themselves appoint the Brazil committee
reps, and they were not selected in the
expectation that do such a thing.</li>
<li>Rather, the civil society IG coordination group
has handled (or is handling) the process for
nominations. (We do realise that Michael Gurstein
is not happy about this, nor is he happy about
1net, or Best Bits, or....)</li>
<li>As for the four liaisons that we appointed in
Brazil, they took <i>interim</i> roles in liaising
both with the 1net group and the Brazil
organisers, but these interim appointments are
superseded as more permanent appointments are made
- initially of the new 1net steering committee
representatives, and (pending) the representatives
on the two Brazil committees.</li>
<li>The fact that the LOG has asked that the
nominations for the Brazil committees go through
the 1net committee initially flummoxed us because
it flew in the face of what we thought we had
clearly told them about our process. But Ian's
response is that we will send our selections
directly to the LOG, and also (as a courtesy, if
you like) to the 1net committee.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry
that it wasn't clear enough already. Parminder I
realise that point 5 above is likely unsatisfactory to
you because it doesn't firmly break the plank of
legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but...
it's intended as a bit of a compromise.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is
the chair of the coordination group.</div>
<br>
<div>
<div
style="font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div
style="font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word">
<div
style="font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><span
style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span
style="font-style:normal;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">-- </span><br>
<p
style="font-style:normal;font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal"><b>Dr
Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global
campaigning voice for consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg,
TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</p>
<p
style="font-style:normal;font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal"><span>Explore
our new Resource Zone - the global
consumer movement knowledge hub |</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone"
target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a></p>
<p
style="font-style:normal;font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">@Consumers_Int
| <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/"
target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a> | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational"
target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p
style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-style:normal;font-size:8pt;font-family:Helvetica;font-weight:normal">Read
our <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email confidentiality
notice</a>. Don't print this email unless
necessary.</p>
<font color="#ff2600"><b>WARNING</b></font>:
This email has not been encrypted. You are
strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME
encryption at your end. For instructions, see <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://jere.my/l/8m"
title="https://luxsci.com/blog/installing-smime-and-pgp-encryption-certificates-into-major-email-clients.html"
rel="nofollow external"
style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal"
target="_blank">http://jere.my/l/8m</a>.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"
target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits"
target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>