[bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Meeting in São Paulo on Friday, January 10th, is between the LOG and 1Net

[Anja Kovacs]

Dear all,

As I agree that the exact relation between 1net and the organisation of the
Brazilian meeting remains a topic of considerable confusion (including on
the 1net email lists), I have requested that the 1net steering committee
seeks clarification from the LOC on what its expectations vis-a-vis 1net
are once the Committees are in place. If the LOC has no further
expectations at that point, and if the 1net steering committee also sees no
role for itself, the current tension will automatically defuse, as 1net
would then automatically move into the background, at least where the
organisational aspects of the meeting are concerned (it would hopefully
still contribute to the substance!). The committee appointments should be
known in about 5 days time.

If the LOC does have further expectations, I think that time would be a
good moment to more formally reassess our stance - through whatever process
deemed most appropriate.

Whatever happens, if at some point it is decided that working through the
1net SC is acceptable on some issues in the preparation for this event, I
disagree that that means 1net will automatically become the default
platform for all CS representation in the future, as some seem to fear. The
exact shape that 1net will take is something that is still to be
determined, and it is up to all of us to provide input into that - and up
to us as 1net SC members from CS to make sure that you all remain informed
of any relevant proposals etc. so that we can collectively frame timely
responses as needed.

FYI, the archives of the 1net SC mailing list are public, and can be
accessed here: http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/

Best,
Anja





On 10 January 2014 20:09, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:18 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell us that
> well this is what has already happened and so.... But what is their
> preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there is a change of view,
> some clarification will be extremely helpful).
>
> I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and clearly
> arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world.
>
>
> Sorry for the apparent confusion.  The process has certainly been made
> clear to Adiel, to the LOG, and we thought it has also been made clear to
> the respective lists, but evidently not.  So let me restate my
> understanding of it:
>
>
>    - The 1net representatives are separate from the Brazil meeting
>    representatives, because 1net aims to be an ongoing dialogue whereas the
>    Brazil meeting is a discrete event.
>    - Following from point 1, it was never stated or anticipated that the
>    1net steering committee reps would themselves appoint the Brazil committee
>    reps, and they were not selected in the expectation that do such a thing.
>    - Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled (or is
>    handling) the process for nominations.  (We do realise that Michael
>    Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy about 1net, or Best Bits,
>    or....)
>    - As for the four liaisons that we appointed in Brazil, they took
>    *interim* roles in liaising both with the 1net group and the Brazil
>    organisers, but these interim appointments are superseded as more permanent
>    appointments are made - initially of the new 1net steering committee
>    representatives, and (pending) the representatives on the two Brazil
>    committees.
>    - The fact that the LOG has asked that the nominations for the Brazil
>    committees go through the 1net committee initially flummoxed us because it
>    flew in the face of what we thought we had clearly told them about our
>    process.  But Ian's response is that we will send our selections directly
>    to the LOG, and also (as a courtesy, if you like) to the 1net committee.
>
>
> Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't clear
> enough already.  Parminder I realise that point 5 above is likely
> unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the plank of
> legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's intended as a bit
> of a compromise.
>
> Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the
> coordination group.
>
>  --
>
>
>
> *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the
> global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140110/2bad320d/attachment.htm>