[governance] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Fri Dec 27 01:56:41 EST 2013
I’ll also be interested in clarification on this Parminder, as I am sure will many others.
But in the mean time I have seen nothing to suggest we do not continue to choose our own representatives, and as far as I can see so far, the suggested 1net role is simply to pass on our names.
It appears that the Brazilian committee for whatever reason want us to notify our choices via 1net, and that could well be something to do with the Fadi/Dilma politics and unable to be changed by the local committee. I also see no reason not to inform Brazil direct and copy to 1net if that is the situation.
But yes we need to know more about what is happening here if possible.
Ian Peter
From: parminder
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 5:23 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
I would like to request the liaisons that we nominated to the Brazilian organisers to help us understand what is going on here...
Did we not all agree that we do not want 1Net to mediate civil society representation or communication to the Brazilian organisers? Why and how did they decide to go completely against our request, in the matter of configuring our own manner of participation in the Brazil meeting? (BTW, I would no longer call it Brazil meeting, but Brazil-ICANN meeting, since it is jointly chaired now, and the responsibility of organising the meeting split rather equitably between them.)
Did the Liaisons that we appointed protest this move or decision - I mean at least that part where it got decided that despite our clearly expressed wishes, we still are to be told that we need to go through 1Net?
I am a bit surprised that 5 days after Carlos sent the notes of the organising group meeting which made such important decisions, there has been no discussion on the matter, especially on how civil society's requests have been spurned.
Why are we so supinely ready to slip into a secondary role under the leadership of 1* group .... This is not only very disappointing, but also rather disturbing.
parminder
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:39:08 +0530
From: parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
To: Carlos A. Afonso mailto:ca at cafonso.ca
CC: BestBits List mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org, NCSG List mailto:ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu, 1Net List mailto:discuss at 1net.org, Chapter Delegates mailto:Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org, Caucus de la Sociedad Civil LA&C Sobre la Sociedad de la Informacion mailto:alc-cmsi at gn.apc.org, gt-brm at cgi.br
Dear Carlos.
Thanks for this report....
Apparently, this meeting of the local organising group (LOG) has moved the pieces around quite a bit, and I now see the 'Brazil meeting' shaping up in a rather different manner than what it seemed to be to begin with....
Most of us saw it basically as a meeting with the Brazilians - initially the government and then the CGI.Br - as the convening 'neutral' trusted party, which would of course take along all stakeholders and so on.... But now for the first time I see the co-ownership of the meeting beginning to split almost equally between the Brazilians and the I* group.
ICANN now co chairs the 'Brazil meeting' - which is the first time I hear such a thing, although I have not been following discussions in the last few weeks and may be wrong. One is not sure why this was found necessary. So, it is no longer a Brazil meeting, it is Brazil-ICANN meeting on the 'Future of ......', right?. .. (BTW what happens to the meme of equal footing! Why are some 'stakeholders' continually more equal and than the others).
Even more surprising is the formal role vis a vis the representation of, or at least as the platform for, all non gov groups that is now clearly conferred on 1Net, an entity about which no one knows what it is, really - who controls it, what is it supposed to do and so on.... Civil society groups had on many occasions, including through formal representation, conveyed to the Brazilians that they are not looking forward to be represented through 1Net, or even have their communication routed through it, ..... Civil society formally made known the names of 4 liaison persons for routing communication to them..
So, while anointing 1Net as 'the' non gov platform for the 'Brazil meeting', simultaneously clear claims and requests from civil society were completely ignored. Was it put forward by anyone during the LOG meeting that such has been the civil society stand (against 1Net mediation) . And if it had indeed been put forward, what was the response of the LOG, and what justifications was provided for its decision. Civil society must be told all about it. It is not willing to be taken for granted, and play the B team to the powerful groups.... We have very high hopes from the Brazil meeting, and the best way to nurture them would be by treating civil society's decisions and requests with due respect, and so on...
I simply do not yet know what 1Net is...As I have often said, I find it very useful as a cross-stakeholder groups discussion space... Some of us did not take much interest in nomination to 1Net's coordination committee because one really had no idea what it was to do.... We were told that the coordination committee would decide what 1Net would do. But now a lot seems to be decided for it already. Who is it pushing 1Net, who are such powerful players behind it that what looked like a mere discussion list gets suddenly conferred with such a powerful role. We never suspected before those nominations to its coordination committee that 1Net would become 'the' non gov stakeholders platform for the Brazil meeting, and would play such a central formal role in it.... This decision, especially the manner of taking it - is a major disappointment. It is in my opinion, a decision taken without good justification, and in disregard of common civil society positions communicated to the LOG.
Hope to get more information on these issues...
Best, parminder
On Saturday 21 December 2013 10:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
Hi people,
This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing
group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to
civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically
the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info.
I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving.
fraternal regards
--c.a.
================================
1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting
This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida
(current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science,
Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé.
2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee
The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations
and for encouraging the participation of the international community.
It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries
(precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12
non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the
UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil
society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN
stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will
be composed of 26 people.
The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance.
One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo
Bernardo.
So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four
high-level reps as soon as possible.
3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee
The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the
discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the
participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part
of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the
Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make
themselves readily available for this challenge.
The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC.
There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are
Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO
of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be
appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to
participate.
Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the
LOG by 1Net.
For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee
two names as soon as possible.
4. Logistics and Organizational Committee
The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of
CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of
national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by
1Net.
5. Government Advisory Committee
This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and
coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be
open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity.
6. Funding
NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance
will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from
ICANN and ISOC are expected.
7. Participation
The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly
close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution
of participants is envisioned approximately as:
450 from govs
500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders
100 journalists
50 IGOs/UN reps
Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation
requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC.
8. Expected outcomes as success indicators
- Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models;
- Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for
global IG;
- Tentative draft of a global IG model.
My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of
preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is
why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real
work towards the meeting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131227/dd44e06b/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list