[governance] civil society role in Brazil meeting
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Nov 20 02:08:01 EST 2013
On Wednesday 20 November 2013 11:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:35 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> There are strong indications from all round that Brazil gov may
> just be taking the easy expedient to channelise non gov
> participation in the Brazil meeting through the 1net structure....
>
> Sala: This is contrary to what I have been hearing from various
> subscribers and members of the IGC and even others within other civil
> society organisations. My sensing is that there is desire to
> collaborate and engage. This is obvious from the numbers that have
> subscribed to the mailing list and also from corridor discussions and
> talks via email or skpe. Please remember that in Bali, we did not
> collectively agree that we would not engage, it was supposed to be a
> strategy meeting. We can very easily take a poll on the matter-
We need to seriously separate two different issues
1. Having CS representation for a role in Brazil meeting being
channelled/ fronted by 1net
2. Having a lateral engagement with 1net, for a purpose of dialogue and
so on
My response to 1 above is *no* and to 2 above is *yes*.
So please indicate responses to 1 and 2 separately.... We have kept up
this confusion for more than a month now. When at Bali i asked for an
'independent' CS liason to Brazil meeting, Wolfgang propositioned, in my
view, very much out of context, that 'independent' is not good and we
should work together. Such a confusion is carrying on, effectively
paralysing us, and making us completely ineffective.
Sala, please mention your response to 1 and 2 above separately... I
gather from your emails below that your response to both is yes... If
so, that is a clear view. Mine is as indicated above... And my
impression from emails and f2f discussions among IGC and BB members has
been that while they are fine to do 2 above the overwhelming response to
1 above is negative.... But happy for people to state their views now...
And as you suggest, yes we can have a poll... but seperately on 1 and 2...
parminder
> And we know that there was overwhelming feeling among civil
> society that this should not be allowed, and we should have a
> direct liason. (Civil society outside the active IG kind is even
> more strongly of this view). Are we know willing to come out of
> our paralysis?
>
> Sala:
> Firstly apologies for the delayed response, have been busy catching up
> with work and emails and conference matters as there are some
> substantive public policy issues affecting global public interest that
> demanded our immediate attention.
> One of the reasons why we were initially cautious about INET was
> because it was not clarified to us at the time what INET was supposed
> to be which caused most of us if not all to be suspicious about the
> process and allude "power grabs". From discussions with some of the I
> Star group, not ICANN, I was told that this was simply designed to be
> a blanket slate where stakeholders and different constituencies can
> come to the table and draft and design the Agenda and ensure that they
> field their representatives to the table. We all come as equals to the
> table.
> *Reasons Why We should Engage with I star group and come to the Table
> at I Net*
> Firstly, kindly note that the I NET is like an open virtual forum and
> it is not owned by any one single group or constituency. Secondly, in
> a world where we know that enhanced cooperation is critical in
> development and addressing concerns affectng global interest, it makes
> sense to work towards building bridges. We need to work towards
> engaging with other constituencies in an intelligent and rational
> manner. To not engage is to effectively render our voice meaningless.
> Advoacy has to be strategic and directed and we need to come alongside
> other communities and add our diversity and voices.
> The Government of Brazil would be innundated with hundreds of voices
> if there were no effective mechanism to channel the voices to her in
> the course of organising a Global Conference. To this end, I would
> strongly recommend that we engage. There are some of you who sit on
> the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) so enhanced
> cooperation should be practised. We must reach beyond ourselves, find
> strength in our values and character and engage. We do not need to be
> abrasive to be good advocates. To reach out, we must first engender
> the confidence in those that we are reaching out to. This does not
> mean compromising our values and principles but rather it means that
> we need to build strong relationships where we can encourage dialogue.
> I have absolute faith that when we come to the table in INET our
> voices will be heard.
> Right now we do not have much time as Brazil draws nigh and we need to
> accelerate our preparations. As per my previous update a few hours ago
> (yesterday as it is now 2:40am as I write this to you), civil society
> organisations heads are discussing mechanisms for selection of civil
> society representatives, noting that we all have diverse selection
> processes with the IGC using NomComs etc. You can respond to my other
> email if you have ideas about processes and mechanisms. For now, please
> Values command the respect of our colleagues as engagement and
> negotiations will play out not just in 2014 but beyond. Because of
> this, we should not isolate ourselves but dialogue and engage. My
> advice would be to come to the table in the I star engagement and lend
> our voice as civil society. To lend our voices as civil society, we
> need to engage with all these stakeholders. The key thing here is to
> ENGAGE. There will be certain positions that we will need our
> alliances to agree on, in terms of key positions on things like the
> preservation of an open and free internet as mandated by our Charter.
>
>
> Lets write a short and succinct letter that we want direct and
> independent liason to the Brazil meeting and want to independently
> present our liasons directly accountable to us and not through the
> 1net or whatever...And just forward the four Brazilain names we
> have as our liasons... We do not have to change/ expand that
> liason structure. Havent the time for that. (and if some people
> insist, we can always do it a bit later). The following is a quick
> text suggestion...
>
> Sala: The letter that is being prepared names the liaisons that we
> will have on the ground in Brazil. The Government of Brazil will
> be working with diverse stakeholders and it has to come through a
> mechanism which happens to be the INET. The INET is not owned by
> any of the I*. It was designed to bring everyone as equals where
> all constituencies can organise themselves and the way forward.
> The only thing I had an issue with was that the mechanisms for
> participating were recently prepared and sent to us. It is unclear
> at this stage, whether that was designed by the Brazil Government
> although I have been informed that it was designed by the Brazil
> Government. There is nothing stopping us from commenting on the
> structure of the mechanism but we should do so not with the
> intention to subvert the round table allowing for diverse
> constituencies to come to the table (there is a world bigger than
> civil society) as the pressing deadline will demand extensive
> coordination in streaming things and preparing for San Paulo.
>
> We of the undersigned civil society networks and groups are
> pleased to note that Brazil has made a formal announcement of
> a ............. (put the official name of the meeting here) .
> We are happy to help the government of Brazil organise this
> meeting and take it to a successful conclusion. We have
> chosen the below mentioned four persons to be our liason to
> the Brazilian government and also to be put on any steering
> committee that may be set up.
>
> ....
> ......
>
> ......
> ...... the names of our four Brazilian liasons
>
> Please include our above representatives in all meetings,
> formal presentations etc that will henceforth take place
> regarding the proposed multistakeholder meeting on the future
> of the Internet..... We will route our inputs to the
> organisation of this meeting through these reps...
>
> Signed
>
>
> (ends)
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto: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/20131120/ce5d0084/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