[bestbits] emails to Adiel

[Jeanette Hofmann]

+1


Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb 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.