[bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/dialogue debates
joy
joy at apc.org
Mon Nov 4 22:02:06 EST 2013
thanks for the update Carolina - very useful.
On the concepts and process requirements: this needs more work currently
ranging from very highlevel to practical (not a bad thing per se) but
just to get the mix right for a concept note. I think item 5 is very
important and addresses some concerns about process (though probably not
all). perhaps worth clarifying what happens where various stakeholder
groups do not agree (ie presumably consensus is needed).
I think a google or other shared doc for the DIGE document would be
helpful. Good to see reference to the best bits statement there. I
suspect the problem definition will be hardest to agree on.
i still believe having a separate line of communication with the Brazil
government is important and is a unique role for Brazil civil society
orgs and one of critical value for those without Portugese language.
Best and thanks again for your work on this
Joy
On 5/11/2013 5:47 a.m., 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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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, 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
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131105/7ec6ebb8/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list