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

[Adam Peake]

Hi Parminder,

On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:04 PM, parminder wrote:

> Can someone tell me one reason why the LOG wants 1Net to relay the names of 3 stakeholder group nominees to them. Why cant they receive these names directly.  

I think the only people who can answer are members the Brazilian committee.  Perhaps you and I should try to find out from them.  I'll send email and cc you.  Hope that's OK.

> CGI.Br has much more resources and manpower than CSTD and IGF, who, with very poor secretarial support, have done such a job of receiving nominees names and forming committees rather well.

Having been involved with the IGF as a MAG member and then on an occasional basis with the IGF secretariat, I'm not so sure.   We are still waiting for the IGF Secretariat to respond about the MAG renewal -- if the Brazilians were as slow (with no disrespect to my friend Chengetai) then we might have the committees formed shortly after the meeting was held :-)  

Seriously, I don't know what resources CGI.br has at its disposal, but the addition of an international high-level meeting, political, at such short notice, on top of other ongoing tasks (they have a "day job") will be a very significant challenge.  They have enough to do.  Let's try to help them. 

(BTW, I have no contract with the IGF Secretariat now, and at present do not expect to work with them this year's IGF.) 


>  And from what I know 1Net really does not exist in any particular shape or body yet....

It seems to be gaining shape right now.  The steering committee is near complete, and they should be giving shape to the "platform" or whatever it will be.  I don't expect the steering committee to act on major issues without consultation and wider agreement of stakeholders.  The committee's charter's being drafted now, so we'll soon see, and be able to comment.


> There is simply no logic here, other than that ICANN, with the 1Net front has been ramming its way into the Brazilian meeting organising space, and LOG has been giving way... Money, what I understand Fadi would basically be meeting LOG today about, may be  a factor, and I simply do not like the role of money in public spaces shaping roles. But what is ICANN's reason? That s the question....
> 
> You want to make it more intriguing.... Though I dont have the time to keep repeating things which happened in plain sight, bec as they say you cannot wake up someone who isnt asleep...


Lights are on but there's nobody home?  Funny... 


> but , briefly
>  

About the intrigue you see, I just don't see it that darkly.  But as indicated in my last email, if I'm wrong and this proves to be the unrepresentative fix you're suggesting, then harm will have been done to the notion of the multi-stakeholder approach.  So I hope I'm right.

Adam


> 1. At the IGF 1Net was launched as a 'movement', and rather aggressively... They were trying to take so much control of the     Brazil meeting that Brazilian gov reps were visibly embarrassed, and even upset....
> 
> 2. Sometime in Dec, 1Net coordinator announced that they will appoint/ coordinate the non gov stakeholder reps to the Brazilian committee
> 
> 3. A meeting of the Brazilian organisers on 27th Dec (?) told them, and everyone else, no you would not do it, we will handle it ourselves (there are mails to the BB list in this regard, which i reposted 2 days back)
> 
> 4. Early Jan another meeting of LOG tells us, well, we have changed our mind, and it is 1Net who will organise non gov relationships with LOG (Carolina in a recent email has descried it as 1Net filtering everything to 1Net)
> 
> 5. so many CS persons get together and decided in Bali that, no, CS wont mediate its relationship through 1Net, but deal with Brazilians directly, and gave 4 Liaisons that specific role... Slowly that resolve disappears and the leadership who was supposed to assert this decision of the 4 CS networks, seem to be itself getting dissolving into 1Net, and so when the LOG turn around took place, no one was complaining. 
> 
> 6 Discussions are rife that 1Net will remain a standing platform for non gov stakeholders, beyond Brazil meeting, and keep engaging as one with global IG spaces... Everything that has been announced from 1Net side has come true. such is it its power, so, keep watching....
> 
> 7 ...........
> 
> 8 ..............
> 
> Many other events making a rather intriguing chain... And you want us to just be complacent, and trust everyone... 
> 
> When the UN but moves the slightest in its bed, we are ready to develop all kind of projections... So many are here already     projecting what they are going to do in 2015, and what is needed to stop them... And with ICANN (how much is it the US establishment?) we should simply trust and wait, and things will turn up well... Sure.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> On Friday 10 January 2014 06:59 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>>