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

[Joana Varon]

I agree with Carlos that the liasons to deal with 1net in its wider
scope/sterring committee shall not be the same 4 Brazilian ones currently
indicated. And believe I've mentioned this before.

But just to clarify, Carlos, did you get the info that there is need for 2
set of liasons at 1net: one set for the summit and another set for the
steering committee, which will be focused on wider activities that this
network will perform? Would u be ok if the current 4 are indicated just for
the first scope (summit) and we figure out a way to indicate others,
including NCUC/NCSG fellows, for the steering?

If so, we are in the same page.

Best

Joana
On 13 Nov 2013 09:40, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Jeremy, I tried to make them (the i*) understand this in our meeting
> with them in Bali, but it seems they did not catch it...
>
> I actually have doubts on our own representation/liaison -- the four
> nominated were so in a bit of haste (actually a BR representation, not
> necessarily a CS one), and there are civil society "tribes" who feel
> unrepresented. I personally feel that at least organized CS which works
> within Icann (NCUC/NCSG) should be part of the representation.
>
> Can we dialogue on this?
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/13/2013 03:17 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.
> >
> >> - 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.
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/de9dbb42/attachment.htm>