[bestbits] emails to Adiel
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jan 10 11:57:18 EST 2014
On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Following up on my message below, in the end, the LOC decided that
> today's meeting would only be open to the LOC. According to
> communication by Hartmut, this was to avoid unbalanced representation,
> as the technical community has not yet appointed its representatives
> (see the message below my email).
>
> In that sense, my request to Adiel to facilitate the participation of
> the liaisons in the meeting became irrelevant.
I dont see why Adiel is being appealed to for facilitating civil society
participation in LOG meeting when a decision was taken at Bali that we
wont use 1Net as our conduit to LOG.... I am happy Adiel responded as
did below...
> However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only
> one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie
> the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing
> directly with the LOC,
Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate our
participation when we expressly decided against it..
> he encouraged us to take up this issue, too, directly with the LOC. He
> also noted, "At this point I can not allow myself to talk FOR CS only
> wile interacting with the LOC". This needs to be read in the light of
> his efforts to make possible the participation of the 1net steering
> group members in that meeting,
Now this is interesting... I know that all stakeholders will participate
in organising committees as nominated through their respective
processes... What is this about 1Net participating in LOG meeting. what
is the basis for that...
parminder
> something that was of importance for all those who do feel comfortable
> with 1net being the conduit for their participation.
>
> Best regards,
> Anja
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Because of confusion and/or misunderstandings if the 1Net Steering
>> Committee already is in place, and
>> to avoid unbalanced participation (only one or two communities), we
>> decided that the meeting tomorrow
>> (Friday January 10th) will be only_*a meeting of the Local Organizing
>> Working Group (Members ofCGI.br <http://cgi.br/>)*_.
>>
>> I expect that all BR Meeting Committees will be in place during next
>> week and then we can start to work with
>> high speed.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Hartmu
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9 January 2014 08:31, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a
> member of the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the
> participation in person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on
> 10 Jan. Joana and Laura are the liaisons who had indicated they
> could make it in person.
>
> Will let you know as soon as there is a response.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
> On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal" <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version.
>
> JC
> __________________________
>
> Jean-Christophe
>
> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit :
>
>> Hi Jean- Christophe,
>> One correction to your excellent summary
>> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian
>> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)*
>> The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering
>> Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak;
>> Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana
>> Varon )
>> The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up
>> about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various
>> constituencies but as the technical community reps have not
>> been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term
>> brief than the Brazil meeting.
>> Ian Peter
>> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM
>> *To:* Adam Peake <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp> ; brmeeting at cgi.br
>> <mailto:brmeeting at cgi.br>
>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society
>> Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ;
>> igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org
>> <mailto:igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel
>> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some
>> good reasons for the mess (not always but...).
>> A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can
>> understand it now, its title might be:
>> *ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG*
>> *
>> *
>> *So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for
>> editing my information to the listings)*
>> When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set
>> for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br
>> <http://brmeeting.br/>), only minor informations are
>> available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference
>> and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for
>> the location of the venue, and its address. In the
>> 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26,
>> 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In
>> the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with
>> 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3
>> hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you
>> click to pop up an email.
>> This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new
>> website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this
>> website to the appropriate level of concern?
>> From diverse emails, I end up with the following information.
>> *Who are the Organizers?*
>> Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the
>> other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC,
>> IETF, RIRs...
>> *Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on
>> Internet Conference?*
>> One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN
>> and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names??
>> *Who are the Representatives of the Organizers?*
>> Officially the one entity which role is to organize the
>> meeting is a "/Brazilian Internet Steering Committee/". This
>> committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN
>> representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a
>> /US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee/, or an /ICANN and
>> BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee/.
>> For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda.
>> Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN
>> delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is
>> also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this
>> secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND
>> the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the
>> committees (see below). We have no specific information about
>> the "shared secretariat".
>> *Who are the Representatives for all IG
>> participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember
>> the multistakeholder story)?*
>> After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering
>> Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI
>> SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many
>> stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little
>> time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a
>> multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd,
>> specially when this filter has no existence, no
>> constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no
>> proper information flow. What we know about this filter
>> (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly
>> constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US
>> role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not
>> endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a
>> private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting.
>> Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an
>> IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare
>> the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system
>> of call for participation.
>> *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be
>> allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of
>> participation.
>> *Who are the other governments participating?*
>> No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at
>> a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will
>> not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT
>> 2012 will be there anyway through the I*.
>> *Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering
>> Committee (BI SC)?*
>> - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government.
>> - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br <http://CGI.br/>
>> - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC )
>> under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN).
>> - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New
>> America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio
>> Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net
>> steering committee or 1net steercom)
>> - ICANN representatives?
>> - Others?
>> ...
>> (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of
>> the first BI SC, and no official information is available
>> online on the brmeeting website)
>> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian
>> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)*
>> - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net
>> steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet
>> Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names
>> of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his
>> answer yet.
>> - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to
>> participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
>> (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir
>> Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With
>> a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from
>> them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed
>> something here)
>> - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another
>> civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013)
>> * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison
>> and a member at the BI SC.
>> *Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed
>> to prepare the event under the BI SC overview?*
>> This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing
>> them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will
>> finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL
>> and ICANN).
>> The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc
>> selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The
>> final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval.
>> For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the
>> organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the
>> names.
>> We don not know about other names.
>> *Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan
>> 10 meeting?*
>> LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by
>> 1net steering committee. Brazilian government
>> representative(s). No other governments representatives are
>> expected.
>> The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told
>> that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote
>> participation issue for the event.
>> Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI
>> SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this
>> meeting
>> Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to
>> include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC
>> be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina)
>> Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of
>> goodwill
>> ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and
>> in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views
>> ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other
>> participants
>> * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all
>> the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting.
>> And therefore not too demanding.
>> The original criteria listing for selecting participants to
>> the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013)
>> 1.Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your
>> individual civil society organisation(s)
>> 2.Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in
>> a multistakeholder setting
>> 3.Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to
>> report back as the process progresses
>> 4.Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in
>> these discussions
>> 5.Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range
>> of civil society perspectives on these issues
>> 6.Capacity to participate assertively and creatively
>> I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes,
>> complement of information, or new information be pushed
>> forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about
>> the process and help overall understanding.
>> Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks
>> for your time on this.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>> JC
>> __________________________
>>
>> Jean-Christophe Nothias
>> Editor in Chief
>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>> @jc_nothias
>> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round.
>>>
>>> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from
>>> the 1Net discuss list:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net
>>>>> steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer,
>>>>> awaiting for answer from the LOC.
>>>>>
>>>>> - a.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his
>>> request to have steering committee members attend. I am
>>> beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but
>>> believe we have selected five steering committee members:
>>>
>>> Rafik Dammak
>>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>> Anja Kovacs
>>> Vladimir Radunovik
>>> Joana Varon
>>>
>>> Marilia Maciel as back-up.
>>>
>>> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in
>>> person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the
>>> committee at least has a list. And if some of the other
>>> Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice,
>>> suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as
>>> proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members
>>> could make this request?
>>>
>>> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when
>>> meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always
>>> mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we
>>> have... and thanks to those volunteering to help.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 <mailto:adiel at afrinic.net>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140110/61457794/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list