[bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
Joana Varon
joana at varonferraz.com
Wed Nov 13 08:04:26 EST 2013
Hi Anja, I was replying to Carlos, I think we were writing to the thread at
the same time. ;)
I have the same opinion as u do.
On 13 Nov 2013 10:35, "Anja Kovacs" <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
> Hi Joanna,
>
> On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
>> My understanding was that the liasons would work as a bridge between the
>> Brazilian Gov and International civil society, passing information and
>> concerns about the Summit. I'm happy to help with it, but if there is no
>> need, my life will be easier, so I'll be happy as well. I just need to know
>> the overall position, because since Bali I've been readapting my agenda and
>> priorities to be able to do this. If it is useless, just let me know. If it
>> is needed, a letter indicating and making clear our role as liassons will
>> also be of good help.
>
>
> My apologies if I caused confusion on this. I do very much think the 4
> liaisons from Brazil should continue doing what they're doing (and you are
> doing a great job at it)! The impression I got from your earlier emails was
> just that the 1net group is proposing all communication on the summit goes
> through 1net somehow, and that all positions taken by us should be
> coordinated with 1net, and this I don't take is useful. Did I misunderstand
> something?
>
> Thanks,
> Anja
>
>> All the best
>>
>> Joana
>> On 13 Nov 2013 09:59, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> >
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/88f8e49c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list