[bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates

Fri Nov 1 06:31:03 EDT 2013

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks Joana for this really excellent report.  I agree with what Ian
and Michael posted in response.  I've already said that I don't think we
should rule out pulling out of this coalition/dialogue, if we can do so
in solidarity (ie. if they won't simply drag in some other civil society
representatives).  But for now, as Ian suggested, let's keep a cautious
watching brief.

In the medium term though, we are going to have to work out a way to
nominate civil society representatives - either to the
coalition/dialogue, or at least, to whatever representative structures
develop around the Brazil summit.  As Best Bits we shouldn't and don't
purport to cover all of civil society, but that needn't stop us from
making suggestions.

So, a priority that I would like us to address (along with the other
streams of work coming out of the Best Bits meeting in Bali - which we
are yet to properly document) is to develop concrete proposals for civil
society representative processes, which /may/ be needed for the
coalition/dialogue, and which will /definitely/ be needed for the Brazil
summit.

This is /in addition/ to work needed to develop /substantive/ proposals
for the Brazil summit.  Both are important.  So it is bad timing that I
am leaving for an OECD meeting tomorrow and that my own contributions to
this process may be delayed.  But at the same time grateful that we have
such an amazing coalition who will be able to address these urgent work
priorities.

The other outstanding question, as Joana alluded to, is /where/ we
debate and develop our proposals, and on this question I will have
another email to send soon about the open/closed list debate.

On 01/11/13 02:34, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Hi.
>
> While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list
still remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on
in the very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with
Fadi and I* representatives, which I have reported a few days ago.
Carlos, Carolina and Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also,
there are others BB subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue
list that may want to weigh in.
>
> I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to
that meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And
since the meeting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of
us, plus Carolina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate
civil society participation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could
read in the report, that meeting took a different direction and was
focused on building the "coalition". So, in the near future, we should
probably re-address the issue of representatives, and the possibility of
broadening CS participation beyond Brazilians if we choose to continue
to engage.
>
> *Summary*
>
> After the meeting, held on Oct, 25^th ,a closed mailing list
(i-coordination at nro.net <mailto:i-coordination at nro.net>) has been
created for the drafting the concept note and debating the name of the
coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the following
organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda,
internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2),
piuha, google, sidn, isoc.
>
> 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the
difference of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the
term "coalition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open
dialogue for the Evolution of Internet Governance
>
> 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by
Adiel, from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name,
people got mostly focused in the name. The only comments received are
marked in the attachment as well.
>
> Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no
government or representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any
extent. I've also sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming
events were only events from the technical communities and there is no
language on human rights in the text, just on business and innovation.
No replies here received on these issues whatsoever, but the drafting is
just starting and is open for our inputs.
>
> 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today
a thread was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an
interim steering committee (about20 people, as far as I understood, the
same as who were at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with
their respective "stakeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list,
the reason was that the list is "receiving every day requests to add new
people (specially from business community)" and the proposal was to
"create a clear demarcation between the large group of people ready to
engage into the dialogue and a subset of it that will facilitate and
coordinate the whole process."
>
> It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee
which raises questions about the composition of the group (until now
there is no balance in terms of number of representatives from each
stakeholder group). This proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised
by oracle about representativeness.
>
> In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions:
>
> >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue?
>
> >> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the
Brazilian summit? ( There is no governments or international
organizations in the concept note. Carolina and I made that point a few
days ago, but it was not heard until now)
>
> >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?
>
> Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our
previous thread about the first report. Another report, about our the
meeting with the Brazilian gov is coming soon.
>
> If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a)
one regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian
government) + the other trying to reach a common ground with the
Dialogue. Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly
and comprehensive way.
>
> all the best
>
> joana
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

- -- 

*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> |
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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJzgucACgkQ9nWq4tKrIiDqnQCdHpiAZ1u0HLfUlzh4ONWWR/uD
1qIAn2tB5t8VpaKM2PgGQzJEsQ3xBdZH
=kELV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131101/a8166d13/attachment.htm>