[governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance

Sun Jan 12 23:28:48 EST 2014

On Sunday 12 January 2014 09:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> The obvious meaning is simply that the two structures (CGI.br and the
> /1Net platform) are helping to organize the meeting -- they do not "own"
> it. The phrase could be better written, I agree.
>
> BTW, as soon as the committees are formed and start their work, the
> local organizing group (LOG) will lose its meaning and will dissolve.
> But I think this is obvious too.

I continue to see it as absolutely problematic how civil society 
leadership went about making or not making the needed relationships with 
the Brazilians in terms of having a central and equal part in organising 
the Brazil meeting - a mandate that was given to it since about a month 
before Bali, and continually over the subsequent 2 months or so. And how 
easily they abdicated this role to ICANN. This may have its unfortunate 
impact on the 'Brazil meeting'. I have a relatively better 
understanding, and even some sympathy, for the circumstances of need and 
real politik that the Brazilians felt, which has led to this decision 
whereby 1Net - a fictional and/ or programmed entity created by ICANN - 
is now a co-organiser of the meeting on equal terms with the Brazilians.

  In fact, rather *in preference to* this arrangement, I would have 
ICANN co-hosting this meeting with the Brazilians. In that case at least 
everyone would know who is who. And yes, ICANN is of course pretty 
important is the scheme of things. But whatever be its other good 
points, it does not have a fraction of similar 'honest broker' image as 
the Brazilians do, which was the reason that the proposed Brazilian 
meeting evoked such an excitement and anticipation. The shift to an 
ICANN co-ownership may be dictated by needs of real politiks but also 
causes considerable loss. Hopefully the loss does not outweigh the 
advantage, if any. One does understand that moving ahead on transforming 
global governance of the Internet will as much be about open and honest 
dealings, as it will be about real politik, and if it is ICANN which is 
coming out with a part of the solution (only a part, since bigger issues 
lie outside the areas ICANN deals with), it may be accepted that they 
have a big role in the meeting that deals with this solution (hopefully 
among others, pertaining to larger real policy issues).

  On the other hand,  1Net is a fictional entity which IMHO is supposed 
to give a multistakeholder wrap to ICANN's intentionality and agency - 
and a very significant part/ aspect of this multistakeholder wrap or 
clothing is the legitimacy of civil society. This is what worries me. 
(What is referred here to as 'ICANN's intentionality and agency' itself 
may be a bigger and complex construct, but lets not digress.)  A very 
big part of global civil society inter alia sees huge problems with 
ICANN-US relationship, and the ideology that wraps that relationship and 
also underlies other major axes of global control/ governance of the 
Internet. Confronting this ideology as well as the associated 
illegitimate levers of control vis a vis the global Internet is among 
the major tasks that this part of civil society sees for itself. The 
artificially created/ foisted so-called multi-stakeholder space of 1Net 
is not at all conducive to this civil society and its purposes and 
activities. I can explain why and how, but that would extend this 
already long email.

Enough to say, that it is best that 1Net takes no further substantive 
role in the Brazil meeting now that the various meeting committees will 
soon be in place. Let it work outside the official meeting space as it 
wishes to develop common positions, or whatever, which will have to 
considered "on an equal footing" with other positions coming from 
elsewhere. It will be unacceptable for the outputs from 1Net to be 
specially privileged, with the justification that they are inclusive, 
since it is multistakeholder entity, which includes civil society, and 
so on.

The surreptitiously slipped in, and entirely unnecessary, role of 1Net 
in forming the Brazil meeting committees was bad enough. You heard Ian 
Peter as leading the coordination committee of four
civil society groups saying that he intends to send the civil society 
nominations directly to LOG (perhaps copying 1Net as a kind gesture). 
The message there should be clear.

My organisation (and there are many others) will be glad to get a 
confirmation from the Brazilian organisers, CGI.Br. that similar 
completely unnecessary roles will not be constructed for 1Net when the 
tasks of listing participants, and, even more importantly, sorting 
substantive inputs, channelising them, and developing final meeting 
outcomes, come up. Especially once the Brazil committees are in place, I 
dont see any role that 1Net needs to play within the meetings 'official 
space'. It is different if ICANN is helping the organisers with some 
logistics and so on. But, I fail to see what role 1Net which is really 
just an elist plus, now, a 20 member steering committee, with no other 
organisational form or resources, could play. But if there is some 
continued official role for it, let us know it clearly upfront, rather 
than be constantly surprised as we have been with the back and forth on 
who is dealing with the committee nomination processes.

Carlos, as you can well make out, this query is primarily addressed to 
the core Brazilian organisers, or the CGI.Br. I have the email id that 
you published to contact the organisers. However, I am not sure how it 
works and who reads its messages and responds, I therefore request you 
and Hartmut to pass this on to whoever you think should read it, and get 
a response for us.

Thanks, and best wishes.

parminder

>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 01/11/2014 03:19 AM, parminder wrote:
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on
>> Internet Governance
>> Date:     Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:45:00 +0530
>> From:     parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> To:     discuss at 1net.org
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 11 January 2014 09:49 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> 1net Participants -
>>>
>>>      There appears to be an updated announcement regarding the Brazil
>>> meeting -
>>>      http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html
>>
>> from the announcement.
>>
>> "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net."
>>
>> So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and
>> it is upto its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most
>> respectfully, but can we at least now shed this fiction... But of course
>> I will be told now - what can 1Net do if the Brazilians are intent on
>> thrusting this momentous role on 1Net? Of course 1Net did not ask for
>> this role, for there is no 1Net. But then are we allowed to make guesses
>> who did, nay insisted, nay extracted it. Why dont we just play open and
>> fair... Everyone has the right to put their views out forcefully, to
>> make alliances with whoever they can, but this is not that...
>>
>> This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at
>> Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going
>> through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting.
>> So, civil society is told, no... your views do not count... And a non
>> existent 1Net is told, well, you take over.... One is really
>> disappointed. This was not what President Rousseff started with. We were
>> trying to make a new start. Seek new directions on where global Internet
>> should go...
>>
>> parminder
>>> FYI,
>>> /John
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>