[bestbits] emails to Adiel

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali 
that some people may not have been able to get into.  And lets not 
forget there was not remote participation in those meetings.  Lets not 
call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided'

I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time.  I 
remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning 
the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. 
  I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on 
the Brazilian meeting".

There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, 
to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian 
meeting.  At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of 
decision.  And we were not a civil society congress that could have made 
such a decision.

Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our 
midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement 
for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling.

I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at 
the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was 
available on a formal basis.  We should be grateful for the work they 
did and thanks then for their service.  Yes, the organizers could have 
given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them 
is definitely in the the center of things.

I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the 
aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we 
group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort.  Beyond, lets see how they 
do.  As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear 
to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil 
society as a whole.  We are just the early participants in an effort 
that has to expand.  A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats 
on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS 
stakeholders to be able to get involved.

avri



On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote:
>
> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC,
> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and
> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the
> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire
> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC
> initiating it.  But if so, I would like a)  to know that this is
> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few
> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives
> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing
> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this
> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree,
> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated
> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc.