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

[parminder]

On Wednesday 13 November 2013 10:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 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.

Joana and others of the interim liaison committee (with Brazil gov for 
the Brazil meeting),

While we are happy to do any kind of lateral dialogues with anyone and 
everyone on Internet (and other) , please do let the 1net group know 
that the overwhelming (happy to be corrected) view in the civil society 
is that we will like to have a direct liaison with the hosts of the 
Brazil meet (which is the Brazil gov).

Also, please do let Brazil gov know this fact in no uncertain terms. And 
please do it urgently and share their response with us.... I told the 
Brazil gov reps in Geneva that this is what we seek, but I have this 
feeling that Brazil gov is really not very clear whether civil society 
would directly deal with it, or through this so called coalition, 1net. 
So we need to make this clear asap, and in the clearest and strongest 
terms. The lack of clarity on this issue is not serving our interests.

Thanks, parminder

>
>> - 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/be0abded/attachment.htm>