[bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

Thu Sep 4 07:46:43 EDT 2014

I'm cross posting this here because  it was suggested I do this, after I 
originally posted this to the CSCG list. To give context - some of our 
members are concerned that there hasnt been enough discussion and want to 
delay consideration until we have clarity about WEF's objectives and plans, 
intentions etc, and formally announce their intentions including decoupling 
from NetMundial. I suggested those in Istanbul seek another meeting if 
possible to clarify matters; but after some thought I posted this. I think 
this explains where we are at from my perspective.

Thinking more about this -

while I would still urge you to meet with WEF and seek more clarity, I think 
our dilemma is this.

WEF dont want to be clear about the process because they want it to be seen 
that the incoming committee defines the process. So we are in a Catch-22 
here – it they define it, they are not being bottom-up, if they don’t, we 
don’t think we have enough clarity to participate.

WEF want to move quickly so they have something to show for their efforts. 
they expect to have all other committee members in place next week, the only 
exception being civil society. They have agreed to us having more time, and 
also to us choosing all CS members. Now if we ask for more time, they will 
see the strength of the project and their commitments at risk and our 
involvement as unreliable.

This is particularly so because we really dont know how much time it would 
take us to decide whether we want to commit or not. I doubt there will be 
any more clarity in one week, or three weeks, or 3 months. So I actually 
think we might have a lot to lose by delaying, and nothing to gain. The 
nature of this initiative as something new and outside our normal range of 
experience means that we probably have to take a risk, or alternatively 
determine right now to disengage.

I think we should take that risk, and stick to our timetable or something 
workable very close to it. In doing so, to minimise our risk, we can 
continue to engage and select candidates, but communicate with this process 
some misgivings and concerns. We can indicate an intention to withdraw 
unless certain developments are committed to.

So by all means talk to them about more time, but I am not sure whether it 
will help. I know that things are difficult at IGF with so many meetings and 
poor wifi, and if it helps we could delay a couple of days and shorten the 
nomination period. But to be honest I dont think we are going to have any 
more clarity then, or within a month. So we may have to engage and be part 
of the development, rather than waiting to react to something which really 
shouldn’t be developed much further without our involvement anyway.

Typical difficulties at the beginning. I understand the caution. Let’s use 
the caution to define our concerns and communicate them as we engage. That’s 
my thoughts, but the decision is yours.

Ian

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ian Peter
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:25 PM
To: Deborah Brown ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and 
The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

Hi Deborah, I can answer this -

We need to put out a call for candidates ( if we are going to) on Friday
(tomorrow) - no later. This is partly because for the next few days many
people will be travelling so we do need to get underway and close off
nominations about September 9-10.

Originally, we were asked to provide final selection of candidates by about
Wednesday next week - clearly an impossibility. We have negotiated a
deadline till September 21 to submit names, but will need all that time to
collate names from various coalitions and make selections.

So really we need to decide whether to participate by tomorrow. - (or
alternatively begin a selection process while we decide whether we are going
to engage or not, which would be messy).

I hope this deadline helps to get some comments!

Ian

-----Original Message----- 
From: Deborah Brown
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 5:05 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi Jeremy,

The timeline on making a decision on this was not clear to me from
your email. You wrote:

The timetable CSCG is discussing would see us begin a call for
nominations no earlier than Friday – the last day of IGF – to allow
discussion and further clarification before we commence any such process.

I agree that there has not been enough discussion of this (nor time to
do so) but a concrete deadline might encourage this ;)

Best,
Deborah

On 9/4/14 9:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> just to be clear on this – the statement below would only be
> when/if we formally announce our nominees – not every time they
> speak!
>
> Ian
>
> From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:38 PM To:
> Carlos A. Afonso Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>  Subject: Re: [bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and
> The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> "The WEF representatives seem to be listening and adapting at IGF –
> so I think this is still quite fluid." You mean, like the Borg? :)
>
>
> I don't feel that we have yet received a good sense from this group
> yet about whether we should patronise the WEF initiative or not.
> You have, by now, seen that the Just Net Coalition people are
> refusing to support the initiative.  If the Coordination Group goes
> forward with nominating candidates at all, it would therefore have
> to be on the basis that any public statement of our nominees would
> include that "although JNC is a member of CSCG, JNC has opted out
> from participation in this particular selection process".
>
> Are we happy with that?  Or do we agree with JNC and want to wash
> our hands of this process?  I have heard view both ways, and I
> don't have a good sense of where the balance of opinion lies.
> Would be grateful for some more people to express their views
> here.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ 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
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=rfXg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

____________________________________________________________
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 