[bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net, etc.

[JFC Morfin]

Dear Joana;
thank you for the information. So far we therefore have now 
(http://bramsummit.org/index.php?title=Brazil_MultiStakeholderism_Summit:Community_portal) 
a grassroots call by (by creation date):

1. civil society / OpenUse: site:  http://bramsummit.org   mailing 
list: http://www.bramsummit.org/mailman/listinfo/agora_bramsummit.org
2. ITU: http://ideas.itu.int/category/1424 mailing list: included. 
Hastily installed. Could be bugged.
3. I* coalition/dialogue: <http://1net.org/>1net.org mailing list 
<https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination>https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination

Who's next?

At 15:09 12/11/2013, Joana Varon wrote:
>Dear all,
>Hello! Sorry for being away on bb threads, I was offline for a few 
>days, I´m catching up with the other emails, but please, find here 
>quick updates on the debates about the I*coalition/dialogue, which 
>now is being called dialogue or 1net:

>- Brazilian summit (that part of the coalition/dialogue, 
>particularly business, remains calling meeting). For that, the 
>dialogue, following our move in Bali, is also suggesting to have 3 
>representatives from each stakeholder (civil society, business, 
>technical community), to identify 3 representatives to participate 
>in the preparations.

I know that the whole current issue is to make believe that the 
business and civil society techies coalesce under the statUS-quo 
restrained architectural culture of the I* $ociety. The problem is 
that (1) IAB's RFC 3869 has well documented why this was not the case 
(2) you take the risk of a technical clash at the summit as the 
Brazilian FLOSS community will be there in force and are technically 
competent people. I would therefore suggest to play lower key in 
talking of civil society's, business' and users' engineers?

At 15:52 12/11/2013, Adam Peake wrote:
>Quick question - in the opening and closing sessions in Bali, 
>representatives of Brazil said the meeting would be open for all to 
>help organize and for all to participate: an open invitation to an 
>open meeting.  Was this discussed on the list, and they instead 
>decided on a more limited steering committee?  (I will try to look 
>at the archives).

If this is a MS summit, it is everybody's summit or it is nothing. 
Could it be any reason why what will be discussed would be different 
from what T&L-paid and remote attendees will want to discuss?

Best
jfc