[bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society role in Brazil meeting

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Nov 20 02:08:01 EST 2013


On Wednesday 20 November 2013 11:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     Dear All
>
>     There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may
>     just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov
>     participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure....
>
> Sala: This is contrary to what I have been hearing from various 
> subscribers and members of the IGC and even others within other civil 
> society organisations. My sensing is that there is desire to 
> collaborate and engage. This is obvious from the numbers that have 
> subscribed to the mailing list and also from corridor discussions and 
> talks via email or skpe. Please remember that in Bali, we did not 
> collectively agree that we would not engage, it was supposed to be a 
> strategy meeting. We can very easily take a poll on the matter-

We need to seriously separate two different issues

1. Having CS representation for a role in Brazil meeting being 
channelled/ fronted by 1net
2. Having a lateral engagement with 1net, for a purpose of dialogue and 
so on

My response to 1 above is *no* and to 2 above is *yes*.

So please indicate responses to 1 and 2 separately.... We have kept up 
this confusion for more than a month now. When at Bali i asked for an 
'independent' CS liason to Brazil meeting, Wolfgang propositioned, in my 
view, very much out of context, that 'independent' is not good and we 
should work together. Such a confusion is carrying on, effectively 
paralysing us, and making us completely ineffective.

Sala, please mention your response to 1 and 2 above separately... I 
gather from your emails below that your response to both is yes... If 
so, that is a clear view. Mine is as indicated above... And my 
impression from emails and f2f discussions among IGC and BB members has 
been that while they are fine to do 2 above the overwhelming response to 
1 above is negative.... But happy for people to state their views now... 
And as you suggest, yes we can have a poll... but seperately on 1 and 2...

parminder


>     And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil
>     society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a
>     direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even
>     more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of
>     our paralysis?
>
>  Sala:
> Firstly apologies for the delayed response, have been busy catching up 
> with work and emails and conference matters as there are some 
> substantive public policy issues affecting global public interest that 
> demanded our immediate attention.
> One of the reasons why we were initially cautious about INET was 
> because it was not clarified to us at the time what INET was supposed 
> to be which caused most of us if not all to be suspicious about the 
> process and allude "power grabs". From discussions with some of the I 
> Star group, not ICANN, I was told that this was simply designed to be 
> a blanket slate where stakeholders and different constituencies can 
> come to the table and draft and design the Agenda and ensure that they 
> field their representatives to the table. We all come as equals to the 
> table.
> *Reasons Why We should Engage with I star group and come to the Table 
> at I Net*
> Firstly, kindly note that the I NET is like an open virtual forum and 
> it is not owned by any one single group or constituency. Secondly, in 
> a world where we know that enhanced cooperation is critical in 
> development and addressing concerns affectng global interest, it makes 
> sense to work towards building bridges. We need to work towards 
> engaging with other constituencies in an intelligent and rational 
> manner. To not engage is to effectively render our voice meaningless. 
> Advoacy has to be strategic and directed and we need to come alongside 
> other communities and add our diversity and voices.
> The Government of Brazil would be innundated with hundreds of voices 
> if there were no effective mechanism to channel the voices to her in 
> the course of organising a Global Conference. To this end, I would 
> strongly recommend that we engage. There are some of you who sit on 
> the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) so enhanced 
> cooperation should be practised. We must reach beyond ourselves, find 
> strength in our values and character and engage. We do not need to be 
> abrasive to be good advocates. To reach out, we must first engender 
> the confidence in those that we are reaching out to. This does not 
> mean compromising our values and principles but rather it means that 
> we need to build strong relationships where we can encourage dialogue. 
> I have absolute faith that when we come to the table in INET our 
> voices will be heard.
> Right now we do not have much time as Brazil draws nigh and we need to 
> accelerate our preparations. As per my previous update a few hours ago 
> (yesterday as it is now 2:40am as I write this to you), civil society 
> organisations heads are discussing mechanisms for selection of civil 
> society representatives, noting that we all have diverse selection 
> processes with the IGC using NomComs etc. You can respond to my other 
> email if you have ideas about processes and mechanisms. For now, please
> Values command the respect of our colleagues as engagement and 
> negotiations will play out not just in 2014 but beyond. Because of 
> this, we should not isolate ourselves but dialogue and engage. My 
> advice would be to come to the table in the I star engagement and lend 
> our voice as civil society. To lend our voices as civil society, we 
> need to engage with all these stakeholders. The key thing here is to 
> ENGAGE. There will be certain positions that we will need our 
> alliances to agree on, in terms of key positions on things like the 
> preservation of an open and free internet as mandated by our Charter.
>
>
>     Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and
>     independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently
>     present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the
>     1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we
>     have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that
>     liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people
>     insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick
>     text suggestion...
>
>     Sala: The letter that is being prepared names the liaisons that we
>     will have on the ground in Brazil. The Government of Brazil will
>     be working with diverse stakeholders and it has to come through a
>     mechanism which happens to be the INET. The INET is not owned by
>     any of the I*. It was designed to bring everyone as equals where
>     all constituencies can organise themselves and the way forward.
>     The only thing I had an issue with was that the mechanisms for
>     participating were recently prepared and sent to us. It is unclear
>     at this stage, whether that was designed by the Brazil Government
>     although I have been informed that it was designed by the Brazil
>     Government. There is nothing stopping us from commenting on the
>     structure of the mechanism but we should do so not with the
>     intention to subvert the round table allowing for diverse
>     constituencies to come to the table (there is a world bigger than
>     civil society) as the pressing deadline will demand extensive
>     coordination in streaming things and preparing for San Paulo.
>
>         We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are
>         pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of
>         a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) .
>         We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this
>         meeting and take it to a successful conclusion.  We have
>         chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to
>         the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering
>         committee that may be set up.
>
>         ....
>         ......
>
>         ......
>         ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons
>
>         Please include our above representatives in all meetings,
>         formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place
>         regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future
>         of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the
>         organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>
>         Signed
>
>
>     (ends)
>
>     parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131120/ce5d0084/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list