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

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 12/11/13 22:09, Joana Varon wrote:
> Work of the 1net dialogue shall be divided in two tracks:
>
> - 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 don't in any way support the 1net dialogue appointing itself as an
interface between civil society and the Brazil summit.  Thankfully it
seems that the point has been made on the list that we have already
appointed our own representatives to engage with Brazil on the summit,
thank-you-very-much.  We should not allow the misunderstanding to arise
that 1net had any part in this appointment.

> - Overall dialogue, were the first step will be exchanges to establish
> a dialogue (or 1net) steering committee to help prepare any materials
> for discussion/coordinate with the broader community.  On my
> perception, reaching balance on this steering committee will be vital
> to assess our level of engagement in the dialogue. The issue of
> representativeness of CS will knock again on our doors.

So this ties in with the previous proposal (see my mail from yesterday)
for us to quickly work with other civil society networks to form a loose
peak structure that would nominate civil society representatives to
other Internet governance processes.[0]

> - pointing representatives from each stakeholder group (business, tech
> and civil soc) for thesteering committee and for the conference
> working group. Please, note that governments are not part of the list
> of stakeholders involved in the dialogue/1net. (ps. I'm just
> reporting, a dialogue without governments is not my perfect view of a
> coalition)

And the website misrepresents this.  It says, implicitly speaking for
the members of the dialogue, "Together - as global users, industry,
civil society, governments, academics, and technical organizations - we
are deeply committed to strengthening the distributed multi-stakeholder
Internet governance framework to serve our next generations."

There are occasions when civil society has been fairly united in pulling
out from a platform that doesn't serve our interests - for example the
OECD Communiqué on Internet policy making, and the EU Licenses for
Europe initiative.  I am not disagreeing with those who say "wait and
see", but my current inclination remains that we should leave 1net to
the private sector and tech community, who will certainly overwhelm our
influence in any case.

[0] A further reason for this being stated by Michael Gurstein in a
different thread:

> that to all intents and purposes CS in its current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The implications of taking this latter position is that if an adherence to MSism is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective and legitimate partner.


-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/2b1f66a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/2b1f66a1/attachment.sig>