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

Mon Nov 4 12:10:17 EST 2013

Hi Carolina,

Thanks very much for this. 

I guess the first observation is that if the i-coordination group wants to discuss process it should start by inviting civil society to the discussion, that would be a first step to good process.  Shouldn't go any further until there's CS on the list other than you guys who, as I understand, are there as coordinators with the Brazilian organizing group, not as CS reps per se.

Might ask Joseph Alhadeff if he really means "input from the Technical, Business, Civil Society and Academic communities".  He seems to have created a new standalone stakeholder group.  Good, but I doubt his intention. (?)

Will we hear from Brazil on November 11 about their plans for the Summit (what does Brazil want to achieve from the meeting,  are the topics still the President's five principles + ICANN and IANA reform.)

As background, how is marco civil progressing?  Would the passing of that legislation be relevant to the principle the President mentioned on net neutrality in particular, or more broadly than that?

Best,

Adam

On Nov 5, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:

> Michael et al,
> 
> Just want to report back on the activities on the i-coordination list, as asked by Michael. 
> Some of those on the "i-coordination" list are setting November 11th as the deadline to publish this concept note. Others think this deadline should not be the real one to pressure this group to publish the statement. 
> For instance, Joseph Alhadeff, from Oracle,  is calling for the group to set a process, before 
> moving on content proposals. I attach his proposal that has been circulated one hour 
> ago. Nobody has replied yet. 
> Joana is on vacation currently - but she is checking emails from time to time. I think Laura is 
> coming back from vacation now and CA is coming back from the LACNIC meeting 
> and may have more news. 
> The Brazilian government has not yet reached to us, but we have sent a short 
> follow-up asking how things are moving and if we should set a call or something. 
> So, no news on that front. 
> Folks who do not have english as theirs first language prefer coalition to dialogue, so that is a 
> third avenue of debate in that list.
> Nobody on that list has specific comment on the suggestions we have sent them so far. (the general 
> ones Joana pointed in her first email).
> So, I am reaching out to check if this group as new and specific comments to both documents.
> We could set a date for comments and I consolidate what we get in this list and send back to them. 
> Would that work? Does anybody else have another suggestion?
> Should we move this forward in parallel to the representativeness discussion?
> I put my name forward to stay in a liaison position both on the side of the Br government
> as on the side of the iStart coalition/dialogue if we wish to continue on that front.
> I attach a version of the "DIGE" document with some quick suggestions I've made. 
> Should I put this document in a google drive, in order to collect your comments/suggestions? 
> How could we best deal with this editing process?
> Looking forward to your comments and suggestions,
> Best,
> 
> Carolina
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:24 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Carolina Rossini 
> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
> Open Technology Institute
> New America Foundation
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
> 
> <Initial concepts and process requirements for the___DIALOGUE.doc><DIGE-gs-cr.doc>____________________________________________________________
> 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