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

Thu Sep 4 09:31:59 EDT 2014

Am 04.09.14 14:20, schrieb Brett Solomon:
> Hey,
>
>(...)

> On process, my concern is that the CS coordinating body seems to be
> taking on a decision making role as to /whether/ we should attend rather
> than /who/ should attend once a decision has made to attend.

This is my concern too, just less clearly worded. We kill the committee, 
and the intention behind it, if we let it expand into this realm.

jeanette
>
> With respect to participating I get the sense that governments and
> companies are v skeptical. So I'm not sure why civil society is rushing
> to put names forward. I have been invited to be on the Steering
> Committee and have not yet communicated with then about which way I will
> go, though I have indicated to Jeremy in Geneva that I would be open to
> the CSCG process. I will certainly keep you posted with my thinking as
> it emerges.
>
> Brett
>
> Sent from my phone
>
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:46 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>
>> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUCA8jAAoJEPeieloNaneNXsMP/20qnKS+3gwDRnyJKniySkRp
>> wcN5h2hQPRisymqsqWlDHtj7TC/cuKx+GTSiSafDWX/I8qvEaPCJa5kIG5pd4pNc
>> QAzov9PhjYGiYQ3zIVEsrKxKzSgGLvGOBfKntxrzo6QSgTkKZ0TkCmDAiZApF4Xi
>> +9c/FxiaFH2ycU0hYeXsq85pN8EoFL5VodX3KGLSWNJ/b3kw0mRFFeuc7BKMRXu0
>> AW8S0l5GRe5DKo5WrKT8v29ic3PPhEyaYzEev1+3ChoAW0QxH5aPHHBdOSakHvay
>> JnXw/B/ICI+mKKy7kk3n/D1XgBYENfVfsRKMjorEQPj4uOsHDRt8Wb3xyXqHO25Y
>> qUQ9T9M8APvZVOBSR2yy6P+PoKg7C8+bM+UeBQS9pjpX1y4g+0kUkn9U7RcPMuA9
>> UOPynf6o4tM25JD3MhV8vE0yKLGGSvkBtwMk6AajEtTaIbu8XH1x4+ZqmKNWlAok
>> 2Arj9lrSQ/APeLi9lsm2U7nXnXL7isY9FFnNSnrfMD07dek3kZX/WsJskgfcniur
>> /DRX95tZAo6gg+yXJLebqD5GNx6gLnqRp1NEM+otRevHoLIGgtSVLn1622GLJqrf
>> 4pCZIrs7QFwcv9DtkMEHVZ/vXyq6cDVEHhL1mDt2Z8C0o3UwWTlnah2/H4jj16mx
>> Cvxf8/oznxXGsoCn//mW
>> =rfXg
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>