[governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps

Tue Dec 10 09:25:16 EST 2013

Hi Marilia,
2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>

> Hi Rafik, in the diplomatic world, I think this panel is likely to have
> some weight, wether we like it or not. It is not CS's attention to the
> panel (or lack of it) that will make a huge difference, or will be a
> measure of the importance of this panel to next year's meeting.
>
> which diplomatic world are we talking about?  some people already made
comparison here to WEF to the global agenda council on internet
http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-future-internet-2012-2014and
yet it is not relevant too. giving it weight looks like
self-fulfilling
prophecy .  you gave importance to the panel so to its outcome and so
diminishing the importance of direct inputs from the community to brazil
conf.

Once the panel is already created and once we already decided to engage
> with it when we put together a NomCom (I was personally against the idea of
> a HL panel too, but this train has left the station), we cannot pretend
> that this lack of due process is irrelevant or has "nothing to do" with us.
> That this is ICANN's turf and we should just disregard it. If we chose to
> give names, we should now go all the way and push for our names to be
> included, as promised. And we should make noise and re-asses our strategy
> of engagement if they are not.
>
>

well, we decided to play the game because we went in hurry to appoint
people, we didn't have time(or we didnt make) to strategize  for it and it
is too late to complain for sure but we can assess the situation.

And again, it is not about Bill personally or the invitation of some
> experts. This is about not finding the conditions no nominate either name
> from CS, while finding the time to invite experts of their choosing.
> Invited experts should go to London and make the best contributions they
> can. But I think they should also raise the point of the problems of lack
> of transparency surrounding this meeting.
>

yes we can raise the issue. but like other who experienced that before, we
will hear just a sorry .

>  There is no clear information about the agenda or the admission of
> observers. We would not be complacent with such an opaque process in the
> UN. Why should be complacent now, when things under discussion are of
> interest to the wide community as well? Our decision about how much to
> engage and about the importance and value of this process depends on
> accountability and transparency.
>

lesson to learn, never run to engage when you don't have any minimal
guarantee about openness because it will be always too late to ask for that
after you join .

anyway, we can ask for having the two representatives from CS there and
about openness.
something we didn't discuss how our representative will "represent" us
there and work to carry a community PoV in such panel?

Best,

Rafik

> Best
> Marília
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it should
>>  be and doing for it  a free promotion! honestly, I was not in favour of
>> the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, formed by
>> handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found now that we
>> want badly to be in that high level panel and making it relevant and maybe
>> even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope that we wont regret such
>> decision later.
>>
>> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely
>> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be any
>> guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included in
>> their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will depend
>> to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process?
>>
>> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name
>> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is
>>> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does
>>> seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally
>>> disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names.
>>>
>>> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in
>>> the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the
>>> meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I
>>> come back to the points I made earlier:
>>> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance
>>> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be
>>> created or clarified
>>> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the
>>> CSTD ECWG)
>>> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam
>>> House rules
>>> And
>>> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal
>>> and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in
>>> the HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation.
>>>
>>> Marília
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS
>>>> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear
>>>> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially
>>>> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one
>>>> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be
>>>> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for
>>>> > the other.  At this stage, I would assume that if there is no
>>>> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will
>>>> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that
>>>> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't
>>>> > something that inspires confidence, is it?
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society
>>>> process through which names have been put forward.
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Norbert
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Marília Maciel*
>>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>>>
>>> Researcher and Coordinator
>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>>>
>>> DiploFoundation associate
>>> www.diplomacy.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131210/955c3652/attachment.htm>