<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:47 AM, Ian
Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba"
type="cite">The distinction we need to make here is between 1net
being a conduit to submit CS names (the current case) and 1net
deciding the CS names (which has not been proposed) <br>
<br>
I would be joining a mass protest if the latter was the case, but
it isn't. I personally have no great problem with 1net as a
conduit if that is what the Brazil organisers want. Not a big
enough issue IMHO. And I think that is where most of the groups
mentioned below (if not all) stand. <br>
<br>
But yes, if that is not the case, let's clear it up on our lists.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ian/ All<br>
<br>
I do not think that civil society should alone shoulder the complete
burden of political naivete and pussy-footing in an environment rife
with deep strategic intentions and plans, and the implementation
thereof..... Now, I cant have much against those who are thus in a
deeply strategic mode. They have their political objectives, about
which they must be convinced are the right ones, and are keen on
achieving them, with all effort, resources, brains and so on.. But
they are certainly not into being naive and pussy-footing...<br>
<br>
Civil society represents the interests of the most marginalised...
It has no right to sacrifice them at the altar of either laziness or
political naivete and pussy-footing, and stepping back limply every
time someone pushes us... But that is exactly what we are doing here
all the time....<br>
<br>
Whether it is the recent WIPO treaty negotiations in Marrakesh on
access to published works for the disabled or the issue of right to
food security at the even more recent WTO meeting at Bali, it is
often civil society groups and individuals who anticipate moves of
those opposed to progressive causes, strategize counter moves, join
up tactically with actors that can help and so on.... They are not
sitting around waffling and being pushed and shoved around by the
powerful... Which I am sorry to say is what the global Internet
governance civil society is doing right now... And this cannot be
excused. We must stand up to our responsibility.. I exhort all right
thinking people here to pull up their socks, look around to see what
is happening, and make their strategies and act on them - they owe
it to the cause of the people who cannot be here to fight for their
rights..<br>
<br>
Now, one can recognise that there are indeed people here who are
comfortable to accept and accommodate the 'push', and the directions
from where the push is coming, because they consider such
accommodation as going well with their specific political objectives
.. Very fine... These are politically critical times, and to be
strategic is just what is needed... What I have a big problem with,
however,is with those who profess that they dont want this rather
forceful - almost violent - push to be accommodated, which has
reconfigured global IG related civil society, at least with regard
to the Brazil meeting, and as per the best hopes of those involved,
for ever afterwards.... But then they simply do nothing about it. <br>
<br>
The time for such procrastination is over... This is a key
political juncture for the global civil society involved with IG,
and to not do anything now is as much a strong political act as to
do something... And therefore we must decide the political act we
want to do - have the global IG related civil be organised under an
ICANN umbrella, or preserve our independent status, and independent
channels of decision making and having relationships with powerful
outside actors...<br>
<br>
1Net was <a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17nov13-en.htm">conceived
by ICANN</a> with a specific political purpose, as a part of a
composite, well-resourced, strategy. (I suspect that there is active
collusion in this regard with the US establishment but if some
others want to exclude this consideration, my argument still stands.
BTW Fadi did indicate something at Bali to the effect that US knew
about the approach he was making to President Rousseff. And since
this approach was a part of a composite plan, I would think US knew
about the whole plan. 1Net included... Often saying that so-and-so
had a 'prior knowing about something' is a polite,
controversy-avoiding, way of saying that so-and-so was a part of the
plan. This is especially likely since ICANN cannot go around
suggesting so seriously that some give-away in terms of some kind of
internationalisation of ICANN may be afoot, without the US being a
part of most if not all of it. But ignore this part if you want to.
Lets take it that 1NEt is simply a part of ICANN's well thought out
and implemented strategic plan.) <br>
<br>
Everything that was expected from 1Net has gone as per the plan,
including the civil society playing along extremely nicely. <br>
<br>
The final strategic intent of the plan - well, excuse me my right to
do my 'political thinking' and strategic fore-sight, even if
tentative - in my reckoning, is to develop a common position among
the 1Net stakeholders and present it as the 'global community's
voice', and force Brazilians, from that 'position of strength', to
do compromises in terms of final meeting outcomes that protects and
furthers the power of many elements of the status quo. (Will expand
on this some other time.) It is as a part of these 'negotiations'
that perhaps/ likely an already ready proposal of giving in
something on US government's oversight role will be offered. I
expect this proposal to be somewhat weak, perhaps, giving ICANN
direct power to change the root, and not much more. I dont expect
legal internationalisation of ICANN. But lets see. And in exchange
of such a relatively weak proposal some major give-aways will be
sought in terms of the current Brazilian position on the directions
towards which global Internet governance mechanism must move. Some
European governments will get into the picture as well. All with
good intention and for a good cause, certainly. Of course, many
things remain unclear... But this in my reckoning is the general
plan or outlook. I may be wrong. <br>
<br>
Now apart from having an extremely strategic, well-laid out plan
towards the outcome stages of the Brazil and a controlled outcome
from it, it is some kind of a by-product that the global civil
society will be disfigured - in being arranged primarily under the
ICANN umbrella - for the purpose of the Brazilian meeting. As per
the best intentions of the planners, such disfigurement of civil
society could in fact be made permanent. Indeed, other than some
initial hiccups, like that letter which four networks wrote in Bali
- something which is actively being sought to be undone now - their
plan vis a vis civil society have been going extremely well. The
developing outcomes may even have exceeded their expectations. <br>
<br>
Normally we should have safe civil society spaces where we could
discuss such possible scenarios and strategies of powerful actors
just among ourselves . But we all know we have lost such safe
spaces, if they ever occurred, and global civil society in the IG
space is being practically run over.... <br>
<br>
I still have great hopes from the Brazil meeting, which I think
will provide some major breakthroughs. I wished to avoid openly
assessing the strategy of some groups in this way, which I admit
does reduce mutual trust. But I see the involved civil society
groups looking like entirely losing their bearing. To me, the danger
is the very survival of IG civil society as an independent entity,
and this is too important an imperative which needed to be addressed
urgently, whereby I just needed to write the above note. I may say
here once again that all actors, convinced of their righteousness of
positions and objectives, as they must be, have a right to be smart
and strategic.... My note is really not so much about attributing
bad motives to other actors, as it to try and wake up civil society
to what it itself needs to do -being similarly smart and strategic......<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba"
type="cite"> <br>
Ian Peter <br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- From: William Drak<br>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:49 AM <br>
To: Jeanette Hofmann <br>
Cc: Best Bits <br>
Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the
question <br>
<br>
Hi <br>
<br>
+1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard
to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous
caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others
were saying really were not itching to start another high drama
argument. <br>
<br>
What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later,
a lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and
APC still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again
asked everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions
through open discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the
members (or in the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still
don’t want to be part of the process and will attempt to liaise
and submit names directly to the LOG, I hope they will also
clarify what functions they want their representatives on the 1net
Steering Committee to perform, and by extension how the SC reps of
non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them,
1net and the LOG. <br>
<br>
Thanks <br>
<br>
Bill <br>
<br>
<br>
On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu"><jeanette@wzb.eu></a>
wrote: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">+1 <br>
<br>
<br>
Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi, <br>
<br>
I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings
in Bali <br>
that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets
not <br>
forget there was not remote participation in those meetings.
Lets not <br>
call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil
Society decided' <br>
<br>
I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all
time. I <br>
remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to
beginning <br>
the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the
ball rolling. <br>
I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the
/1net on <br>
the Brazilian meeting". <br>
<br>
There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of
consensus, <br>
to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to
Brazilian <br>
meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that
sort of <br>
decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could
have made <br>
such a decision. <br>
<br>
Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians
in our <br>
midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get
agreement <br>
for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. <br>
<br>
I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are
getting at <br>
the moment, they have done well at getting us information
before any was <br>
available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the
work they <br>
did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers
could have <br>
given them greater access to what was going on, but at least
one of them <br>
is definitely in the the center of things. <br>
<br>
I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net
as the <br>
aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders
(however we <br>
group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets
see how they <br>
do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG
may appear <br>
to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover
civil <br>
society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an
effort <br>
that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full
set of seats <br>
on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL
interested CS <br>
stakeholders to be able to get involved. <br>
<br>
avri <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t
care if IGC, <br>
Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per
se), and <br>
whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick
with the <br>
position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and
the entire <br>
1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of
the TC <br>
initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that
this is <br>
confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view
of a few <br>
people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the
representatives <br>
of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support
1Net playing <br>
this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net
playing this <br>
role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that
don’t agree, <br>
and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders
requiring repeated <br>
explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or
y, etc. <br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________ <br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
*********************************************** <br>
William J. Drake <br>
International Fellow & Lecturer <br>
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ <br>
University of Zurich, Switzerland <br>
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, <br>
ICANN, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.ncuc.org">www.ncuc.org</a> <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>
(direct), <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a> (lists), <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.williamdrake.org">www.williamdrake.org</a> <br>
*********************************************** <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________ <br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>