[governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Oct 12 02:31:12 EDT 2013
Rafik
I did argue the potential benefits at length. At the same time, logic of
cautious wait may also appears as sound. Finally, it is ones politics -
and the extent of ones disenchantment with the status quo of power in
global IG. As for those who are rather disenchanted, this is a major
potential opening for a disruptive impact, something that has come after
a long time, due to certain historical matching of political
configurations - a prime element of which is the near universal global
outrage following Snowden revelations. And such openings dont come
everyday. To those, like for instance us, for whom there is major issue
today about who has power and who hasnt in global IG, and is
marginalised, it is difficult to let go such a prime opportunity without
making the best attempt to leverage it. That is the simple fact here.
To others, there may be less threat in status quo and more in the
possible/ likely new configurations. Well, that is how it is then... But
we should understand and acknowledge the politics that lies behind it..
It is not some simple technical difference of appreciating whether
entrepreneurial political opportunism is better or conservative caution
is more well-advised. Well, consensus-ism often does get used to
safeguard the status quo.
If anybody is in fact ready to convey the statement to Rousseff, our
organisation's intention is still to go ahead with it. Hopefully IGC
would sign it, but if not, those who want to send it can do so.
Co-coordinators: Is is time to check rough consensus on the shorter
version or not yet?
parminder
On Saturday 12 October 2013 10:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Firstly, we can take the usual time for seeking consensus. Just
> not postpone to another time... Secondly, I have not clearly
> heard, or any rate understood, the concerns.
>
> well I think that some people like Anriette , Anja , already
> expressed scepticism and asked at least to have the discuss in Bali
> and so waiting before sending the letter . I also didn't get till now
> what is the concrete outcome of sending the letter
>
> Lets be clear what we are doing at present - Just welcoming an
> initiative that by all means looks like a serious outcome oriented
> or at least outcome seeking one, and saying that we want to be
> there right away driving it along with others.... What is wrong
> with it. The potential benefit is clear - we try to get a bit tri
> - lateral about this initiative.... Any other time will be too
> late.... And as I said I dont see the downside....
>
>
> for me it seems more interpretation or wishes of we may want to
> happen instead of having clear proofs or indications or benefits. and
> honestly I don't buy those arguments that we should hurry and don't
> miss the opportunity .any action we will take we have to bare the
> consequence later.
>
>
>> I want to be sure if I got you message correctly.
>> I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am still
>> not convinced and I want to highlight that any action we take,
>> will have impact soon or later and can backfire. I don't think
>> that you would disagree with more strategical approach.
>
> You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight
> is good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here
> I havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any
> political act carries risk.
>
>
> I saw people talking about being opportunistic and pragmatic,well I
> will take the cynical standpoint and remind that we are dealing with
> politicians(even for the ICANN CEO), they will of course welcome any
> letter support and like it. but what what will happen if we found the
> initiative is going in totally different direction? are we going to
> send another letter?
> do you really think they will care about it? probably no and maybe
> they will keep referring to the first letter because it support them
> and their narrative.
> why not investigating first and getting more details about what they
> have in mind before hurrying?
> should we jump there because one public statement?how can we make
> strategical decision with such few details?
> idem for people talking about benefit and opportunity to be part of
> the initiative but didn't give any clarification how that will happen.
> kind of shot first and then wait and see?
>
> anyway, I expressed my concern about sending letter to support
> initiative yet to be defined, that we don't have so much details about
> and without consensus on strategy that we have follow.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Regards, parminder
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2013/10/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>
>> It is here
>>
>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014
>>
>> Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus
>> document of demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and
>> strong letter, of a few sentences, that Brazilian President
>> or some top guy would actually read, and not get confusing
>> messages. I am not saying we should not say whatever we
>> definitively want to say - but be clear and short, that is all.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>
>>> sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are
>>> developing here? can you please clarify?
>>>
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/10/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is
>>> strategically of essense, some of us would keep working
>>> on a posible text over today and try to present
>>> something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do
>>> very much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus,
>>> but it doesnt happen we would open it to organisations
>>> and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a
>>> practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont
>>> think it is ok that we can produce a statement to
>>> critique a UN process is just no time, with all kind of
>>> ambiguous languages, and on such an important -
>>> potential game changer - initiative from a developing
>>> country, a paralysis seems to be setting in)...
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a
>>>> tide/ in the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the
>>>> flood, leads on to fortune"...
>>>>
>>>> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to
>>>> seize it.... President Rousseff was made, what would
>>>> have perhaps been, somewhat a regular kind of offer.
>>>> She seized it with both her hands, even announced the
>>>> like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden
>>>> high prominence, and people are celebrating Rousseff,
>>>> and somewhere, if it plays its cards well, Brazil have
>>>> now got an edge.... which it can use to further its
>>>> interest...
>>>>
>>>> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some
>>>> interests - real interests of real people, who are most
>>>> marginalised, and we have to take our own
>>>> responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally
>>>> paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are
>>>> real differences of views, well, that counts.... But a
>>>> permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no
>>>> good...
>>>>
>>>> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run
>>>> and what gains we can make... And others must also
>>>> contribute what they think are risks or advantages....
>>>> merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do
>>>> face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my
>>>> own view, is not the appropriate response.
>>>>
>>>> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf
>>>> tries to cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps in
>>>> anticipation of the new proposal for democratising
>>>> global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present -
>>>> BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG
>>>> issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It
>>>> proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be
>>>> changed about the global governance of the Internet.
>>>> Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and even
>>>> declares a possible timeline, just like that,
>>>> off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all
>>>> that has happened, and that is all anyone knows has
>>>> happened. There is nothing hidden that civil society
>>>> may suddenly become complicit to if they support this
>>>> proposal.
>>>>
>>>> In supporting it, we would only be saying -
>>>> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs
>>>> to change in global governance of the Internet should
>>>> take place with some urgency,
>>>> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and
>>>> not a hidden manner,
>>>> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative
>>>> comes from one of the key developing nations - the main
>>>> votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN or the
>>>> technical community - seen as the main symbol and
>>>> defender of status quo,and that
>>>> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the
>>>> middle of all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes
>>>> place...
>>>>
>>>> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister
>>>> about the proposed meeting surfaces at any later time
>>>> we can as publicly withdraw our support, saying this
>>>> is not at all what we bargained for)
>>>>
>>>> So either people here agree to the above, and we can
>>>> write a statement, or they dont... This is the time to
>>>> do the statement, when people are still wondering what
>>>> kind of initiative it really is, and with what
>>>> implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make
>>>> this thing somewhat trilateral from its current
>>>> bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We
>>>> may not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks,
>>>> the initiative would already be too solidified in fact,
>>>> or in people's mind for civil society support to have
>>>> this kind of impact....
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more
>>>>> information emerges. We can draft a letter which is
>>>>> more meaningful when we have a better idea of the
>>>>> scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely
>>>>> attendees, and possible processes for the conference.
>>>>> It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the
>>>>> next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss
>>>>> at Bali and before then try to find out a little more.
>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>> *From:* Deborah Brown <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM
>>>>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff &
>>>>> Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet
>>>>> governance in 2014
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm
>>>>> a bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to
>>>>> finalize a letter before many of us travel and are
>>>>> otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make
>>>>> more sense to continue this discussion online and take
>>>>> advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those
>>>>> of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as
>>>>> others have pointed out, we know so little about the
>>>>> initiative at this point.
>>>>> The draft text (available here:
>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem
>>>>> to capture the cautious optimism that a number of
>>>>> people have expressed. I also have concerns about
>>>>> providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco
>>>>> Civil process, when that process is not yet complete.
>>>>> Of course the text of the letter could change
>>>>> dramatically in just a few hours ;)
>>>>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does
>>>>> imply a follow on communication with more concrete
>>>>> proposals. I wonder if it might be more effective to
>>>>> streamline our communication to the Brazilian
>>>>> president and head of ICANN.
>>>>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking
>>>>> while the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach.
>>>>> But given the factors I mentioned above, I would
>>>>> support taking some extra time if we need it. In any
>>>>> case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and
>>>>> continuing the discussion around this important
>>>>> development.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Deborah
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>>> <nnenna75 at gmail.com <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is,
>>>>> from the civil society, it is support for an
>>>>> IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive
>>>>> that the current IGF
>>>>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that
>>>>> may be in any way understood as "Civil
>>>>> Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push".
>>>>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil
>>>>> Society that are working on, concerned about
>>>>> and/or interested in IG and Internet issues
>>>>> intend to play key roles in the summit.
>>>>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we
>>>>> plan to pursue in the summit
>>>>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder
>>>>> participation
>>>>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about
>>>>> the diverse roles that CS can play and that
>>>>> some time in Bali will be dedicated to the
>>>>> issue during the BB meeting in Bali.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be
>>>>> discussing the MS Selection processes, and I do
>>>>> hope, personally that we can use that opportunity
>>>>> to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on
>>>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127
>>>>>
>>>>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will
>>>>> be back online and I'm happy to contribute
>>>>> language if any text begins to surface. In case I
>>>>> do not, here are my ideas:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is
>>>>> supporting, which is the idea, and not the
>>>>> institutions
>>>>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to
>>>>> engage
>>>>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the
>>>>> Multistakeholder principle
>>>>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are
>>>>> ongoing
>>>>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete
>>>>> engagement proposals
>>>>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available,
>>>>> to help us scope the idea itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Nnenna
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon
>>>>> <joana at varonferraz.com
>>>>> <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear people,
>>>>>
>>>>> For the level of information I have (which is
>>>>> basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to
>>>>> host a Summit on Internet after April -
>>>>> coincidentally or right after the meeting on
>>>>> Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential
>>>>> elections period), I don't feel comfortable
>>>>> about writing a letter congratulating for
>>>>> something I dont really know what it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to
>>>>> start working on our agenda online and, with a
>>>>> potential to be much richer, during our
>>>>> several meetings in Bali. (what do we want
>>>>> from all this besides participating in the
>>>>> Summit??)
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to
>>>>> understand and discuss this with the Brazilian
>>>>> government and Brazilian colleagues from civil
>>>>> society or other sectors. And see what is the
>>>>> final draft of Marco Civil that the government
>>>>> will bring to our table very soon (if it truly
>>>>> endorses all the principles she has mentioned
>>>>> at the UNGA).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over
>>>>> cautious position, but I really need more
>>>>> inputs to see the big picture.
>>>>> All the best
>>>>>
>>>>> joana
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael
>>>>> gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> M
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>]
>>>>> On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM
>>>>> To: McTim
>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>>>>> michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik
>>>>> Dammak; Joana Varon;
>>>>> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>,;
>>>>> NCSG List
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits]
>>>>> Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will
>>>>> host world event on Internet governance in
>>>>> 2014
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear compa McT,
>>>>>
>>>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you
>>>>> will not change your logical view...
>>>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of
>>>>> people in all sectors who feel
>>>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of
>>>>> Brazil and its concrete proposals to
>>>>> finally move on.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the
>>>>> motivation -- Rousseff's statement
>>>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the
>>>>> basic principles most of civil society
>>>>> defends (which she has repeated several
>>>>> times in her radio program and her
>>>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to
>>>>> build a planetary framework of
>>>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue,
>>>>> from a meeting of IP addressers
>>>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do
>>>>> you think Fadi just dropped by the
>>>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and
>>>>> entered to sell that proposal? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that
>>>>> this is not a proposal for yet
>>>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of
>>>>> the UN chatting space called IGF,
>>>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear.
>>>>> It is a major achievement that
>>>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead
>>>>> this effort jointly with BR.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the more so because, as you know,
>>>>> there are strong sectors within the
>>>>> government who would love to bring the
>>>>> root-zone to the purview of the ITU,
>>>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the
>>>>> pluriparticipative model of governance
>>>>> we defend, and who are basically
>>>>> associated with the transnational telecom
>>>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks
>>>>> in BR.
>>>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge
>>>>> wall here, to defend those
>>>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and
>>>>> emerging from the meeting with thar
>>>>> proposal was a major political milestone
>>>>> for her in those internal disputes
>>>>> as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> [] fraterno
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says:
>>>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has
>>>>> accepted our invitation that we
>>>>> > hold next year a Global Summit"
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Seem fairly clear to me.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos
>>>>> A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
>>>>> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a
>>>>> few times more... :)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --c.a.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM,
>>>>> michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical
>>>>> everyone.. I may be wrong but this
>>>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats
>>>>> off to Fadi for getting this
>>>>> >>>> going and putting that into play.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if
>>>>> the Pres. of Brazil is going
>>>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April
>>>>> next year to discuss names and
>>>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that
>>>>> she is by-passing the quite
>>>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the
>>>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now
>>>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom"
>>>>> crusade and the status quo which it
>>>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete
>>>>> errr. (non) rules and regs.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the
>>>>> video again several times that
>>>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of
>>>>> the Montevideoans) that are
>>>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the
>>>>> idea of the Summit comes from
>>>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>> @joana_varon
>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Deborah Brown
>>>>> Senior Policy Analyst
>>>>> Access | accessnow.org <http://accessnow.org>
>>>>> rightscon.org <http://rightscon.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> @deblebrown
>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20131012/79bc4bca/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