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

Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Wed Nov 13 06:59:46 EST 2013


I wish to dialogue on that too. Who identified or determined this "need"?

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

On 11/13/2013 09:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
>     > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>     > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>     <http://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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 


More information about the Bestbits mailing list