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

[Norbert Bollow]

[With IGC coordinator hat on]

Hi Michael

Please include IGC's governance mailing list when posting the draft.

I hope that the IGC should be able to reach consensus on endorsing a
letter along the lines of “we are interested in the planned event,
please include international civil society in the preparatory process”.

Greetings,
Norbert


Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:53:31 -0700
schrieb "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>:

> I'm not a great drafter of letters but I could work with someone
> (Anja?) to try to get a draft out in the next few days.
> 
>  
> 
> N
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:42 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 about sending a letter of support. . 
> Especially since it could possibly push things along, in more positive
> directions. 
> 
> And since it is yet almost an unborn initiative, we could put in the
> stake early.... Who knows in exchange for the legitimacy gained
> through civil society participation someone may even give us some
> elevated seats at the table... Brazil has often jumped to such
> partnership opportunity with civil society in other areas, and
> offered genuine partnerships.
> 
> So, lets do it. Write to Brazil welcoming the initiative,  and so on. 
> 
> parminder
> 
> On Thursday 10 October 2013 08:36 PM, michael gurstein 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 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. 
>