[discuss] BR meeting site launched

Thu Jan 16 01:04:28 UTC 2014

Parminder:

You state below “I for one dont see why 1Net needs to do an organising role when multistakeholder Brazil meeting organising committees are in place...”  Pardon my ignorance, but I am not aware of these “multistakeholder Brazil meeting organising committees.”  Can you or others on this list provide some specific information regarding these committees, and any links to websites, email lists or any other internet presence for these committees?

Thanks!

Greg Shatan

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:44 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] BR meeting site launched

On Wednesday 15 January 2014 07:55 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Several members of the 1net Steering Committee communicated
>on the Steering Committee email list that they were deeply uncomfortable
>with the announcement in the Brazilian 10 Jan press release of 1net's supposed
> role in the Brazilian meeting  without the Steering Committee,
Anja:
I’ve been looking through the archives and must say that I am somewhat disappointed with these expressions.
I think there have been several indications, going back to mid-November, that the 1net steering committee would be appointing nonstate actors to the 4 committees that would be programming the Brazil meeting. After going through a laborious and contentious process of appointing people to this committee to do just that, I am wondering why Vladimir and others are suddenly expressing fear and loathing at the idea that they are actually responsible for doing something (and quickly).

 {Parminder} You constantly refuse to acknowledge evidence given to you that whoever is pushing 1Net seems to have made this announcement without authorisation, and that the Brazilians soon after made an announcement that clearly seemed to nullify the one you are talking about. Overall there clearly being a lot of back and foth on the issue...

If you read this message: http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/2014-January/000042.html  you will find a 1net person saying that he thinks the LOC should spend weeks negotiating with the newly appointed 1net committee aboiut what it should do, rather than starting to execute. If this is correct, and I am not misreading it, I would suggest that committee members who are not ready to spring into action are leeting down the communities that appointed them.

{Parminder} When IGC and BestBits contributed to their appointment, 1Net was being mooted just as a cross stakeholder discussion space. John Curran among others have said this repeatedly on this list, and he should know. It is this reason that while I welcomed such a platform I paid little attention to selection of its SC. In fact, in taking on a completely different role without referring back to the concerned  'communities' the committee members will be going beyond the mandate they have... I for one dont see why 1Net needs to do an organising role when multistakeholder Brazil meeting organising committees are in place... Why this duplication... Anyone who proposes such duplication has to make the case for it. To me it is completely inexplicable.

parminder

I would encourage you and Validimir to reconsider your ‘deep discomfort’ or at least articulate a better idea of what you think you _should_ be doing on that committee.

* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140116/7db78b3b/attachment.html>