Thanks for this Carolina and it is extremely useful.
I've accepted all the edits in the version that you sent and added some
editing (some for English usage and some more substantive) as well as a
number of comments to both articles attached.
I have one general point and two more specific points.
The general point is whether it is in the interests of CS in relation to the
Brazil process to become submerged in the "Dialogue/Coalition". I can see
how it would be to the advantage of the technical and private sector
stakeholders to have such a united front, particularly if it is formulated
on basic principles which they espouse, but I can see no advantage and a
number of disadvantages in CS not maintaining its independence and
developing an independent voice/input into the Brazil meeting including both
the preparatory and follow-up processes.
Further to that I have some question whether CS should be privileging the
IGF as compared to other possible mechanisms in our formulation pre-Brazil
as these documents do.
Finally, I have some question as to whether CS should be aligning itself
with MS processes and MSism as the "statement" does without at least an
attempt to more fully define what in fact MS/MSism is meant to mean in the
context of this document
Best,.
Mike
From: Carolina Rossini [mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:48 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Joana Varon Ferraz; bestbits
Subject: [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue
debates
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: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,
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/> http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
* <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com> carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/13970ca6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Initial concepts and process requirements for the___DIALOGUE-MG.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29184 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/13970ca6/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIGE-gs-cr-mg.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 53760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131104/13970ca6/attachment-0001.doc>