[bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Meeting in São Paulo on Friday, January 10th, is between the LOG and 1Net
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jan 10 05:31:22 EST 2014
Dear Joana/ other Liaisons (or who were supposed to be Liaisons),
Again, my responses are strictly political and not personal...
Pl see inline
On Thursday 09 January 2014 06:18 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Sorry for not clarifing this yesterday, was having hard time to find
> ur msg again in the deep sea of emails in my inbox.
>
> All I can say is that, unfortunately, the Brazilian government has
> never taken into consideration the role of the liaisons.
Since CS groups gave you the mandate, if you were unable to fulfil it,
this should have been immediately reported back to us. On the other
hand, even when I repeatedly, and Ian and Jeremy once each, asked for
'what is happening', there has been no report. This in not my
understanding is how Liaisons work. There is a little point knowing
this now, when this thing called 1Net, to confront whose likely
single-conduit role you all were appointed as liaisons, is firmly in
place and driving the process.
As a person who took a primary role in insisting that we appoint
Liaisons immediately, in face of a lot of foot dragging among many, and
also suggested that 4 Brazilians at hand be asked to do this job, I must
express complete disappointment on how this role has been played... In
fact, I know of nothing at all that got done vis a vis this role. I am
happy to be told otherwise.
> We were never invited to any single meeting that has been assembled
> with ICANN and interactions were always about us knocking on everyones
> doors to try to be informed.
Again, no one told anyone of us... Again, the word is 'Liaison'... Why
did you not report this back and we would have wrote another letter, or
found another strategy to deal with this situation.
> On the other hand, this nomination did serve as an incentive for the
> four/three of us to get together and work to assemble information
> through different channels and communicate whatever we could grasp to
> the international community.
Can you provide me an instance of such a communication.
> As Carolina has already explained in a previous email exchange with
> you. If it was not good enough, be assure, we have been doing our best.
I am not convinced... I did not know till date the fact now being
presented that despite your attempts you were not allowed into any of
the meetings, and given no information. Which simply means that
Brazilians completely ignored the letter that 4 key civil society
networks wrote to them - after all these groups having communicated the
same things to the Brazilians in person at Bali...
Why dont you, and we as civil society, consider this a serious issue? I do.
(I am positive that if they have been treating civil society like it it
is because we are allowing them to treat us like this. Why? The question
is, why?)
>
> My email to Glaser mentioning to consider 1net steering was because he
> mentioned that the meeting was with "LOG and representatives from 1net".
We need to first remind the LOG, no, civil society wants to directly
talk to LOG, that was the mandate given to you by CS groups in Bali...
We dont have to simply accept things, which in fact go expressly
against the mandate given to the Liaisons which is to not accept 1Net as
the conduit for CS interactions with the Brazilians... Please let me
know if you think that this was not the mandate, and we can discuss it
here.
> If that was the scope of the conversation, my natural reaction was to
> wonder: which 1net representative? If 1net had just passed through a
> process of electing representatives, why not referring to the elected
> ones? Basically, I was just working in the scope of possibilities that
> the LOG has given us with that email.
Again, the CS letter clearly said, you 3 or 4 as our Liaisons have to
deal directly with the Brazilians and not through 1Net.... I know I am
repeating it again and again but that was pretty much what we decided at
Bali when the role was given to you...
>
> The capacity of 1net to be a truly multistakeholder is yet to be seen.
> The steering have just been formed. So, of course, I'm not defending
> 1net's role,
People have a right to take whatever political position they want to
take vis a vis 1Net.... But as CS Liaisons given a role which was
expressly to develop direct conduits to LOG (a mandate given in the
express context of 1Net wanting to be the conduit) I think you needed to
report back to us before you took the alternative approach, which was
directly opposed to the mandate given to you..
Please no hard feelings... Everyone is doing our political jobs here,
and I have the job to defend the interests and constituencies that I
work for...
It is very disappointing that after long discussions took place on both
IGC and BB lists where there was clear preponderance of view that civil
society should act independently and not through 1Net, which we all know
where it comes from and what its strategic objective is (read ICANN
resolution if you have any doubt), a good part of the leadership,
whether through acts of commission or commission has landed civil
society right in the lap of 1Net.
This remains as unacceptable to me now as it was at Bali and pre Bali...
Others may have changed their views, but I havent. (The least one can do
however if to inform that their views have been changed, and the reason
for it).
And well, this is too important a matter for a small group of people to
decide - whether IG civil society would want an independent and
direct-relationship status at global IG meetings or go only through an
ICANN developed space. I am sure that majority of actors in the IGC and
BB want an independent status and a direct / un-intermediated
relationship with meeting organisers. And not have to do as a part of
platform created by ICANN and dominated by global big business.
I would request IGC and BB list to take a vote from the membership
whether civil society wants an independent status and direct
relationship to the Brazil meeting, or do it only as part of 1Net. This
is urgently required. To me, this is almost a constitutive issue for IG
related civil society.
parminder
> as we still don't know what it is. My intention was to pass this
> message to LOG: if 1net is meant to be legitimate, or is meant to be
> the conduit by any form, which is questionable, then, please, refer
> also to elected representatives of that network. Otherwise, we would
> be there just to legitimate something else, I role that I'm not
> comfortable with.
>
> That's basically it. Sorry if my msg was unclear to you by any chance
> (I know that, at least for the other liaisons, it would not be taken
> as any kind of action to exclude then. We cannot be excluded, if we
> were never included. We are working in the sense that if two ears or
> one mouth from the three of us in on the room, it is already a win.)
>
> Looking forward for the committees to be formed so we can stop jumping
> at people's windoms to collect information or drop suggestions that
> might not be taken into consideration. So we could focus on what
> pleasures me the most: research and building collective solutions.
>
> Hope it makes it clear to you. I know you are annoyed by many
> questions, but we are all annoyed and anxious too. Just the reactions
> are different, I've been trying to keep the positivity and patience,
> as the challenge LOG is facing is huge and I still trust they have the
> best of intentions. Maybe I'm naive.
>
> all the best
>
> joana
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:26 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>> Dear Glaser,
>>
>> Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the
>> steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the
>> next planning meetings?
>>
>> At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives
>> in the various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at
>> least representatives from international civil society should
>> attend such meetings to report back to it's constituencies.
>>
>> As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now
>> trying to create some legitimacy for this network by electing
>> it's representatives for the steering/coordination committee, I
>> think that at least enabling elected representatives for 1net to
>> attend and report back should be a way forward to start opening
>> up the planing process while the Br committees are not formed yet.
>
> Joana
>
> Before you were sent to 1Net by some CS groups (for a task never
> too clear to me) you were asked to be CS Liaison to the Brazilians
> to ensure that CS has a direct relationship with them and our that
> relationship is not mediated. I remember that at Bali your views
> were also quite strong on this issue. Now you are slipping in an
> acceptance of the 1Net's mediating role as fait accompli, and
> telling us that you are trying to contribute to building
> legitimacy for 1Net..
>
> I must admit, i remain thoroughly surprised by whatever is
> happening, and in the closed manner that it is happening...
>
> Hope that we can hear some words of clarification from you and
> others...
>
> parminder
>
>> IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this process.
>>
>> all the best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> researcher
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Fundação Getulio Vargas
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser
>> <glaser at cgi.br <mailto:glaser at cgi.br>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> _*URGENT INFORMATION*__*/CLARIFICATION*_
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the
>> local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details
>> related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's
>> committees.
>>
>> _This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's__ __process,_ since
>> they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all
>> stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work.
>>
>> Thanks for your support.
>>
>> Local Organizing Group/CGI.br
>> BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting
>> on the Future of Internet Governance
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140110/a5de487b/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list