[bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
Nnenna Nwakanma
nnenna75 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 13 08:31:31 EST 2013
Hi people
> 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
>
>
This part holds
> (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.
>
>
At the moment we opted for the BR4, the only issue on the table was a
meeting in Brazil. But things have moved and rather fast. The Coalition
is the new space and will certainly last longer than the Brazil event.
> Is this the general understanding?
>
The 1Net list is now open, wo eveyone can engage. So I see that the
openness takes weight off our BR4. They can concentrate their energies in
working in the framework of the meeting in Brazil. Then the broader CS can
engage a discussion its representation on the steering of 1Net
N
>
> 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> 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 <%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> |
>>>> > > 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
>>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131113/0b6a9678/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list