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

[michael gurstein]

Joana and all,

 

Please note that this following clause from the statement you forwarded, is
highly exclusive depending on how/who is interpreting it. This needs to be
further clarified, defined or eliminated IMHO.

 

Contributors to the Dialogue believe that Internet Governance is best done
through multi-stakeholder means - that is, in ways which incorporate the
views, and seek the agreement, of all those involved in the evolution and
development of the Internet

 

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:34 AM
To: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary
I*coalition/dialogue debates

 

 

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, 25th, a closed mailing list
(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 (about 20 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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/21299d1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIGE-gs(1).doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 39424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131103/21299d1a/attachment.doc>