[discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation

Thu Jan 30 21:37:24 UTC 2014

Hello Jeremy all,

On 2014-01-30, at 08:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> Is 1net really of and for its participants, or is it still being controlled by the same technical community representatives (presumably Adiel) who negotiated the addition of 1net's name and logo to the Brazil website, and its role in the meeting?  Even if that is water under the bridge now, what if other actions are taken in 1net's name in future?  Might we soon see 1net endorsing other initiatives or issuing statements out of the blue?

/1net is well meant to be of and for its participants and controlled by no one (at least not by me as you specifically cited me). The steering committee is formed to take that role. Moreover, I have not *negotiated* anything on the name of /1net. I have just tried since the beginning to ensure people are engaged with the dialogue on this mailing list and provide information I have from the LOG to the list, nothing more. I have not been directly involved in any *negotiation* about the role of /1net. I believe that all the reports and background information retaliated to the Brazil meeting always had, since the beginning reference in a way or another to /1net (refer to the first message I have forwarded to the list on 18/11/2013 where /1net was already mentioned several times - I just forward that minutes as I got it - in the spirit of transparency - I myself was not in the meeting so I could have not pushed anything for /1net). The two meetings I have attended where reported to the list and in these meetings a *major* role of /1net were neither a matter of negotiation nor formally put on the table as a formal point of discussion. Of course I have never questioned it (as nothing was hidden - even the position of some CS group who questioned it was also not hidden according to the letter sent to the LOG on 25 Nov 2013). The only thing I have said and will say again is that the Brazilians at these meetings have clearly expressed their preference to deal only with a single interface for non-government engagement in the meeting (ICANN could have been their choice maybe but I think they see in /1net a wider group even being informal). I don't think there is anything bad for them wishing that and seeing in /1net the opportunity to have that single interface. 

The Steering committee has requested some clarification from the LOG on the role of /1net in relation to BR meeting, and this below is the response received (on 24/01/2014):

----
/1Net is expected to be the bridge between all international stakeholders/communities (business, civil society, technical and academia) and the Brazilian Multistakeholder Internet Steering Committee of the Internet. By appointing the different community representatives you already fulfilled one of the expected roles of /1Net. Beyond this, we expect that /1Net promote the event, invite participants to apply to participate and to be selected by the EMC, and if possible, send observations and proposals for the success of the event.
----

This is on the agenda of the Steering Committee's meeting tomorrow. Anything else related to Brazil meeting and my role or any negotiation about forcing /1net through to play a major role is just speculation. I have no personal interest in BR meeting (beside the ability for all of us to use that as a vehicle for advancing/improving some aspects of the current IG mechanism ) and there are even chances that I will not be able to attend the meeting. So please let move on and get on to discussion on real issues and challenges we are facing.

Thanks.

- a.  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140131/c1e7a63b/signature.asc>