[bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates

[Norbert Bollow]

Good analysis from Ian and Michael.

+1

Greetings,
Norbert


Am Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:09:21 -0700
schrieb "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>:

> Yes to Ian's comments below and certainly we should not be in a
> position at least as this time, that the "coalition" is able to
> present themselves as representing CS in addition to the Technical
> Community and the Private Sector.
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:42 PM To: Joana Varon;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [Follow up of the
> previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you Joana and all for your excellent reporting back on the
> meetings and “progress”.
> 
>  
> 
> Right now I think our position should be one of a “watching brief”
> rather than taking any particular leading role or total commitment to
> this particular group.
> 
>  
> 
> >From memory Brazil said it would be giving more information about
> >the conference in a couple of weeks. That might give us more
> >information.
> 
>  
> 
> But it seems that this multistakeholder coalition without
> governments, which this list seems to be, may not always represent CS
> best interests, and our representation appears to be token in any
> case.
> 
>  
> 
> Current actions of this type could well see governments coalesce
> behind an ITU solution. This could be very embarrassing to the
> technical community groups.
> 
>  
> 
> Right now this seems to be a not well thought out muddle that might
> actually put the cause of sensible internet governance back rather
> than advance it . I think we should contribute positively, but not be
> in a position where we are tied to the objectives and approaches of
> this coalition.
> 
>  
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
>  
> 
> From: Joana Varon <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>  
> 
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:34 AM
> 
> To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> 
> Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
> I*coalition/dialogue debates
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all, 
> 
> Hi. 
> 
> While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB
> list still remains, please, find below a summary about what has been
> going on in the very closed list that was created after the Friday
> meeting with Fadi and I* representatives, which I have reported a few
> days ago. Carlos, Carolina and Laura, please, feel free to add other
> points. Also, there are others BB subscribers that are also in the
> coalition/dialogue list that may want to weigh in. 
> 
> I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to
> that meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And
> since the meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three
> of us, plus Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help
> facilitate civil society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as
> you could read in the report, that meeting took a different direction
> and was focused on building the "coalition". So, in the near future,
> we should probably re-address the issue of representatives, and the
> possibility of broadening CS participation beyond Brazilians if we
> choose to continue to engage. 
> 
> Summary
> 
> After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list
> (i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the
> concept note and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four
> of us, it comprises the following organizations/companies: ICC,
> Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic,
> apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc. 
> 
> 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and
> the difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less
> binding, the term "coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is:
> 1net | An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Internet Governance
> 
> 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by
> Adiel, from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name,
> people got mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are
> marked in the attachment as well.
> 
> Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no
> government or representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to
> any extent. I've also sent comments regarding the fact that the
> upcoming events were only events from the technical communities and
> there is no language on human rights in the text, just on business
> and innovation. No replies here received on these issues whatsoever,
> but the drafting is just starting and is open for our inputs. 
> 
> 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast.
> Today a thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of
> an interim steering committee (about 20 people, as far as I
> understood, the same as who were at the Friday meeting) which will
> then liaise with their respective "stakeholder" groups. Quoting the
> admin of the list, the reason was that the list is "receiving every
> day requests to add new people (specially from business community)"
> and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation between the large
> group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a subset of it
> that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process." 
> 
> It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee
> which raises questions about the composition of the group (until now
> there is no balance in terms of number of representatives from each
> stakeholder group). This proposal got 3 agreements and one point
> raised by oracle about representativeness. 
> 
> In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:
> 
> >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue? 
> 
> >> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the
> >> Brazilian summit? ( There is no governments or international
> >> organizations in the concept note. Carolina and I made that point
> >> a few days ago, but it was not heard until now)
> 
> >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?
> 
> Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our
> previous thread about the first report. Another report, about our the
> meeting with the Brazilian gov is coming soon. 
> 
> If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a)
> one regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the
> Brazilian government) + the other trying to reach a common ground
> with the Dialogue. Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity
> in a kindly and comprehensive way.
> 
> all the best
> 
> joana
> 
>