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

[parminder]

There seems to be a lot of agreement here that this is serious question 
(I think it is a foundational one with respect to civil society 
configuration in the IG space)  - whether different civil society groups 
want to deal directly with the Brazil meeting organisers or if they want 
to do so primarily through 1Net as a single conduit. And that, 
accordingly, we should seek the guidance of the membership of different 
civil society configurations, wherever and whichever way possible, to 
have a clear decision on this. I suggest that we do exactly that...

I will like the IGC membership for instance to vote on choosing one of 
the below options

With regard to the forthcoming Brazil meeting, do they want,

1.  primarily, to deal directly and independently on all key issues with 
the Brazilian meeting organisers (through the various organising 
committees being assembled, or otherwise)

OR

2.  primarily, to deal through the 1 Net structure as a single conduit...


It should be obvious that this is not about civil society having any 
relationship with 1Net or not.... This could be in form of participating 
in a cross stakeholder dialogue - which is all I knew, and was told 1Net 
is about, when its steering committee was chosen.... Or it could even be 
in form of some organisations/ groups among us using that platform for 
developing common positions with business and tech community for the 
Brazil meeting (which clearly seems as its primary purpose now)... 
Everyone has a right to join up with whoever they wish to for such joint 
positions, or strategizing.. Well, some groups may even decide to do it 
with the US gov, or the Chinese gov or with Google plus Facebook... That 
is open for anyone to do..

What is being questioned here is whether we are ready to accept 1NET as 
our single conduit to the Brazilian meeting, which hopefully is going to 
be a very important one for the future of global Internet governance.

parminder



On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:19 AM, William Drake wrote:
> 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
> ***********************************************
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140112/cd0f30c5/attachment.htm>