[bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
Joana Varon
joana at varonferraz.com
Wed Nov 13 08:35:27 EST 2013
+1 nnenna et all
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
--
--
Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131113/f5e0dd96/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list