[bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014

[michael gurstein]

+1 :)
 
M

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:20 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: 'matthew shears'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will
host world event on Internet governance in 2014

Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I disagree and agree with Anja that a letter of support would be 
> desireable. I would be very surprised if our earlier letter of support 
> for Dilma's speech at the UN was not communicated to her, perhaps even 
> directly through one or another of our Brazilian colleagues

Carlos had the opportunity to gave it to her in person; there's a picture of
the event on the IGC website.

Specifically, see the first attachment at
http://igcaucus.org/letter-international-civil-society-organizations-preside
nt-dilma-rousseff-support-her-statement-68th

Greetings,
Norbert

> or through those on her staff who are monitoring these activities; and 
> who knows, perhaps even contributed to strengthening her (and Fadi's) 
> resolve to take such a courageous and even audacious step.
> 
>  
> 
> A letter of support could only reinforce her/their intentions in this 
> matter and indicate that we (whoever exactly "we" are) as a CS group 
> are in support of this development, intend to provide on-going support 
> as it develops and further intend to actively contribute to its 
> success through ensuring that the public interest of all, globally, 
> are reflected in the Internet governance structure which hopefully 
> will emerge.
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of matthew 
> shears Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:28 AM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil 
> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014
> 
>  
> 
> I agree that we need to approach this with some caution.  That said, 
> we should start working on a CS agenda for this summit - its good for 
> CS to communicate its expectations of such events early and we should 
> start this process in Bali.  Less convinced about the need (or
> desirability) of writing letters of appreciation to all and sundry - 
> we can always note our appreciation in the agenda we work up.
>  
> 
> On 10/10/2013 06:47, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> 
> I share Rafik's caution to some extent, but it is difficult not to be 
> enthused by this proposal. As Mike points out, it is a tremendous 
> opportunity for all of us to engage in this debate. Why don't we start 
> working on another letter to Rousseff, in which we support the idea 
> but also start outlining a CS agenda for the summit? What would we 
> like to see such a summit achieving? Maybe we can use our discussions 
> in Bali as a basis from which to start drafting such an agenda.
> 
> And maybe time for a word of appreciation to Chehade as well, at least 
> from those of us who believe that the internationalisation of ICANN 
> would be a good thing :)
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> Best,
> Anja
> 
> On Oct 10, 2013 7:57 AM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
> On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote:
> 
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria  <mailto:avri at acm.org> 
> <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN 
> has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and 
> unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the 
> Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder?
> 
> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance 
> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN 
> towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all
> governments) can participate on an equal footing...
> 
> 
> It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in 
> proposing similar advances on the status quo.  (I have not made much 
> of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of 
> endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation
> (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this 
> was because the statement was simply too long.)
> 
> This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future.  Of course 
> the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it 
> has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in 
> multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the 
> Tunis Agenda.  Of course it will continue to have a role as a 
> discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a  larger role has 
> moved elsewhere.
> 
> It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical 
> community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.  
> Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced 
> cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and 
> ineffectual.  With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and 
> forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms 
> at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant.
>