<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">There seems to be a lot of agreement here that
this is serious </font><font face="Verdana">question </font><font
face="Verdana">(I think it is a foundational one with respect to
civil society configuration in the IG space) - whether different
civil society groups want to deal directly with the Brazil meeting
organisers or if they want to do so primarily through 1Net as a
single conduit. And that, accordingly, we should seek the guidance
of the membership of different civil society configurations,
wherever and whichever way possible, to have a clear decision on
this. I suggest that we do exactly that...<br>
<br>
I will like the IGC membership for instance to vote on choosing
one of the below options<br>
<br>
With regard to the forthcoming Brazil meeting, do they want,<br>
<br>
1. primarily, to deal directly and independently on all key
issues with the Brazilian meeting organisers (through the various
organising committees being assembled, or otherwise)<br>
<br>
OR<br>
<br>
2. primarily, to deal through the 1 Net structure as a single
conduit...<br>
<br>
<br>
It should be obvious that this is not about civil society having
any relationship with 1Net or not.... This could be in form of
participating in a cross stakeholder dialogue - which is all I
knew, and was told 1Net is about, when its steering committee was
chosen.... Or it could even be in form of some organisations/
groups among us using that platform for developing common
positions with </font><font face="Verdana">business </font><font
face="Verdana">and </font><font face="Verdana">tech community
for the Brazil meeting (which clearly seems as its primary purpose
now)... Everyone has a right to join up with whoever they wish to
for such joint positions, or strategizing.. Well, some groups may
even decide to do it with the US gov, or the Chinese gov or with
Google plus Facebook... That is open for anyone to do..<br>
<br>
What is being questioned here is whether we are ready to accept
1NET as our single conduit to the Brazilian meeting, which
hopefully is going to be a very important one for the future of
global Internet governance. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:19 AM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi
+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.
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.
Thanks
Bill
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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">+1
Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali
that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not
forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not
call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided'
I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I
remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning
the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling.
I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on
the Brazilian meeting".
There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus,
to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian
meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of
decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made
such a decision.
Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our
midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement
for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling.
I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at
the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was
available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they
did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have
given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them
is definitely in the the center of things.
I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the
aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we
group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they
do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear
to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil
society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort
that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats
on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS
stakeholders to be able to get involved.
avri
On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC,
Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and
whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the
position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire
1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC
initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is
confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few
people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives
of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing
this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this
role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree,
and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated
explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
ICANN, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ncuc.org">www.ncuc.org</a>
<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),
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.williamdrake.org">www.williamdrake.org</a>
***********************************************
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>