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

Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org
Sat Jan 11 21:14:17 EST 2014 

+1 to Ian's remarks.  Big -1 if it proposed that we should be limited to using the 1net committee representatives to make our own civil society nominations.  We must retain the flexibility to own our own processes for doing that.  Avri (makes a point in a different thread) that the existing members on the coordination group are not inclusive of broader civil society, but this is exactly why using the 1net committee would be a bad idea, as there are fixed number of civil society representatives locked into that committee.  In the coordination group, this is not the case and indeed we now have a proposed pending addition of a CIVICUS representative to extend the group to broader civil society outside of IG.

On 12 Jan 2014, at 3:17 am, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> 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 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers 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. 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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140112/9f65ab02/attachment.sig>

More information about the Bestbits mailing list