[governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps

[Lee W McKnight]

Sorry McTim, not quite buying it.

I will read between the lines that our choice of names was not quite welcome as a last minute add to the London meeting; albeit only last minute since IGC were not asked earlier to engage at 'High Level.'

Admittedly, those 2 names were NEVER going to be warmly received. Ok, 1 name. Cough, Milton.  (I suspect Anriette's exclusion is a guilt by association thing, NOT about timing; but of course no need for anyone to admit or deny that.)

Since I was one of Milton's advocates for inclusion, frankly I do consider this a test case for willingness of ICANN for the Brazil meeting to be as - forward-looking and substantive - as IGCers would like.

Fine, as Milton and everyone else notes, the HLLM process was started by ICANN and they can invite whomever they wish to their party, no need for explanations of invitations not extended.

Still, the test case imho shows the limits to what ICANN wants to have on the Brazil agenda, and that's again - their choice as co-convenor of a process.

Therefore, I suggest we stop paying so much attention to HLLM since it is its own ICANN show; and focus instead on the substance of Adam's suggestions as to steps and processes on the cs road to Brazil.

Feeding docs to those engaged with HLLM to - maybe - make some level of mention of what we do, is ok, but not a high priority given that the HLLM die is cast. Mozilla, ICANN, Heritage etc will all do the best they can for their constituents, as they should, and agreed with McTim in broader CS sense there is representation. So no problem, we all move on.

Even as the clock ticks ever more loudly towards April 2014. When either - substance or show - happens.

I already placed my bet that we are all invited to witness/participate in the -show - of a Fadi/Dilma April 2014 handshake photo op, to advance President Rousseff's reelection bid AND Fadi's ITU Pleni-phobia agendas.

Fine, some of us can be extras in or out of the photo frame; but is that all we are trying to do?

CSers engaged in Internet governance discussions as IGC, Best Bits, APC, whatever label, can of course input directly to Brazil co-organizers and liaisons, without the need to negotiate or filter through HLLM, to try to make more of the Brazil event than might otherwise occur, towards initiating a multi-year process to move the global ball ahead towards an - open and shared Internet governance goal or set of goals. (Keeping with the sports analogy, the fumbled HLLM process counts as another own goal along with fumbled launch of 1net, but as Milton generously noted, there is a rush and not much time and we all make mistakes.)

Still, in the virtual hothouse of the final April agenda assembly effort, by Brazilian CS, and Brazilian government and business interests, AND ICANN as lead for the 1net, hllm etc processes, things will shake out one way, or another.

So my 2 cents - let's move on, and leave HLLM to Bill to advise and inform, since that's all they appear to want from us.

Fine, there's much more to do and debate, as Adam has begun to do. Without needing HLLM endorsement or permission for those discussions. Who has further comments on Adam's 2-part email?  Modifications?

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:28 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel
Cc: George Sadowsky; Jeanette Hofmann
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Marilia Maciel
<mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental divergence
> of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and it is
> certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is not a
> disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL panel
> matter has been conducted.
>
> Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we
> have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS
> representation.

I'm not sure this is correct.  While they aren't perhaps
"representative" in the sense of the whole of CS coming together and
deciding on a set of stances on issues that need to be communicated,
if you look at the list of folks on the HLP:

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17nov13-en.htm

I see Mozilla Foundation, NLNet Labs, ISOC, Frank La Rue, Hudson
Institute, Wikipedia and ICANN as neither biz nor gov nor Intergov, so
there are CS (in the broader sense) folks on the Panel.



 "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a process
> to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. Just to see
> that effort being disregarded without any convincing explanation.

That remains to be seen.  IIUC, 1 more CS rep was NEVER going to be on
the London meeting.  Just not enough time.  In any case, I would
expect that if we were asked to add one more name, then they will
honor that in due course.


 To my
> knowledge, we will not have any representative there to convey any
> substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as expert. What
> bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that participated
> in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they wanted experts, not
> CS representatives, why not be clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is
> better than a unfulfilled yes.
>
> With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I
> think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance.

Exactly, and we can convey our substantive issues via Mozilla or
Wikipedia or whichever non-profit we think will be receptive.


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t