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

[michael gurstein]

Following this below and in recognition of this unanticipated significantly expanded role of Inet with respect to the Brazil meeting, the Community Informatics network (CIN) reserves the right to present itself for participation on the Inet Steering Committee as part of the CS and Academic components and to further present candidates for those Civil Society and Academic Committees and activities where members of the CIN have particular expertise and knowledge to contribute.

The CIN is currently completing a full NomCom process. Reporting is expected immanently. However, based on these new developments the CIN reserves the right to adapt the output of these processes to respond to these new opportunities for effective participation and contributions from the network and from within the context of the Community Informatics Declaration for an Internet for the Common Good.

Once our NomCom process is complete we will, in recognition of the revised role for Inet, look to realize the CIN's appropriate role within Inet's current and future activities as significant Civil Society and Academic stakeholder contributors.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:44 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question


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,\

I agree, and think this is very important. When CS reps on steering committee of 1Net were chosen what was know was that 1Net is just a cross stakeholder dialogue space... I welcomed it in this role, but as I mentioned earlier on this list, I dont think a steering committee of a discussion space has a very important role, and thus ignored the process of SC selection, as not politically important. Now suddenly, 1Net is the co-organiser of Brazil meeting and the single conduit for non gov stakeholders (and we have to believe that these roles have been foisted by the Brazilians on a poor, organisationally non existent, 1Net, but
well) .... I think the CS reps on SC which were chosen with a particular role in mind must re-seek the mandate of those who selected them whether and how to undertake dramatically different roles that 1Net has now been given (or rather has taken up).

The networks that constituted the process of selection of these reps must decide on the new role of 1Net, and the chosen CS reps on SC should act as per the instructions of the joint view of CS networks...

If the chair of the CS CC group that selected them (Ian), says, for instance, as he does, that CS CC plans to send nominations directly to LOG, then CS reps on the SC must tell others on 1Net that this is how it is, and contribute to forming 1Net's view on it....

parminder


>   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
> ***********************************************
>