[bestbits] [very quick follow up] I*coalition/dialogue = 1net
Mawaki Chango
kichango at gmail.com
Wed Nov 13 09:24:58 EST 2013
Hi,
I have been on the 1net list for some time more than 24hrs now and have
spent some time navigating the archives. I also feared there was some
confusion on the communications about CS representation on the steering
committee being proposed by the i* orgs on 1net (was thinking about
alerting the group on this when I saw Jeremy's first post message to the
1net list.)
It is also my understanding the the BR quartet was decided specifically to
liaise with Brazilian govt and organizers, precisely because the BR govt
has a track record of cooperation with BR CS and our colleagues in Brazil
will be more effective in navigating the landscape (political or otherwise)
in such a short time span we have to take care of many things. So setting
up the BR quartet had nothing to do with an international/global steering
or organization committee across stakeholder groups. So we need to be
careful in communicating with other stakeholders about this.
If there is any other group to be formed, I think we need first to clarify
among us whether we need and want to be part of it, and decide on the
modalities of delegation/representation. On the other hand, as we discussed
at lengths before Bali, we need(ed) to get something rolling on CS side,
otherwise we will only be discussing whether to join or not a one-stop shop
set up by other stakeholders.
As to the question on the 1net website content, as far as I could see from
the archives, AFRINIC Chief (Adiel) proposed initial language and there
were a few comments (especially on the name and bylines of the coalition).
I haven't seen much traffic on drafting the rest of the text, unless some
part of that work was private. At any rate, unless I missed it, nothing
that looks like a consensus call from the list --and while anyone can
suggest improvements, I'm not sure formal consensus was/is needed in that
environment.
Best,
Mawaki
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mawaki Chango, PhD
Owner, DIGILEXIS Consulting
www.digilexis.com
m.chango at digilexis.com
Mobile: +225 4448 7764
Skype: digilexis
@digilexis
@DIG_mawaki
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
> +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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131113/8d6f5053/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list