[bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question

[Ian Peter]

The distinction we need to make here is between 1net being a conduit to 
submit CS names (the current case) and 1net deciding the CS names (which has 
not been proposed)

I would be joining a mass protest if the latter was the case, but it isn't. 
I personally have no great problem with 1net as a conduit if that is what 
the Brazil organisers want. Not a big enough issue IMHO. And I think that is 
where most of the groups mentioned below (if not all) stand.

But yes, if that is not the case, let's clear it up on our lists.

Ian Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: William Drake
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:49 AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: Best Bits
Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question

Hi

+1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to 
remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, 
those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were 
not itching to start another high drama argument.

What happened in Bali should stay in Bali.  It’s two months later, a lot has 
changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC still do not 
accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked everyone to follow, 
please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open discussions and rough 
consensus, pronto.  And if the members (or in the case of BB, subscribers) 
decide they still don’t want to be part of the process and will attempt to 
liaise and submit names directly to the LOG, I hope they will also clarify 
what functions they want their representatives on the 1net Steering 
Committee to perform, and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS 
networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG.

Thanks

Bill


On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> +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.
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************







____________________________________________________________
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