[governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Fri Jan 10 08:29:56 EST 2014 

Hi Parminder,

If 1Net is transparent in this process, just a coordinator and a space where stakeholders can discuss, while the important matters of content and themes, agenda, logistics, etc, are run through the committees established by the Brazilian organizing group, then I hope we will find the meeting in April is successful (as successful as it can be given the obvious constraints), and civil society will have contributed, been heard, been equally successful.

To be honest I don't know what 1Net's role will be, seems to me that the Steering Committee is there to sort that out, with stakeholder agreement of course.  I don't believe 1Net is a proxy for ICANN, they have clearly had a role in its creation and organization, but what we make of it from now seems up to us and the other stakeholders.  I hope I am not wrong in this, if I am then in a few months we'll have seen a vary major failure in this multi-stakholder approach. I hope that doesn't happen. 

Adam




On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:14 PM, parminder wrote:

> The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind...
> 
> This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part.
> 
> Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. 
> 
> What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote:
>> +1 on Adam
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ian,
>>> 
>>> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting.  But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame.  And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. 
>>> 
>>> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done.
>>> 
>>> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust.
>>> 
>>> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion:
>>> 
>>> 1.  Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker.  We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class.  We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc)
>>> 
>>> 2.  LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders.  This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above?  
>>> 
>>> 3.  1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net.  Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent.
>>> 
>>> 4.  LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting.  Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on.  Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff.  Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda.  I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome).  I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF.  Working groups many of us have asked for.  Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks.
>>> 
>>> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now.  If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes.
>>> 
>>> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent)
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now.
>>>> 
>>>> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus.
>>>> 
>>>> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments.
>>>> 
>>>> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step.
>>>> 
>>>> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Carolina Rossini
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM
>>>> To: parminder
>>>> Cc: 
>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> 
>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel
>>>> 
>>>> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). 
>>>> :-)
>>>> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. 
>>>> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. 
>>>> hugs
>>>> C
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder 
>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear folks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI.
>>>>> 
>>>> Carolina
>>>> 
>>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there.
>>>> 
>>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. 
>>>> 
>>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.)
>>>> 
>>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened    since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you?
>>>> 
>>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests....
>>>> 
>>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about  a public duty, and seeking accountability about it,  this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks, parminder 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity)
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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/
>>>> 
>>>> + 1 6176979389
>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     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

More information about the Bestbits mailing list