[bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
matthew shears
mshears at cdt.org
Wed Nov 13 08:11:51 EST 2013
I think this is congruent with what I thought we were looking to have,
which was:
The 4 who interface on the summit (with Brazilian government, CGI.br,
etc.), who were selected during our meeting at the IGF and who have had
the initial engagement with the "coalition", and
(eventually) another set of persons who would substitute the 4 above to
represent civil society in the "coalition"/1net (or whatever it is being
called) going forward.
Is this the general understanding?
Matthew
On 13/11/2013 13:04, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
> Hi Joanna,
>
> On 13 November 2013 17:43, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>
> > >
> > > 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>
> > > <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
> > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> <http://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>
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
--
Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/e7708a97/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list