[discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

[parminder]

John

Thanks for your response and the information you have shared...

I can of course agree with you that 1Net, not yet having any clear 
purpose or structure in place, should hardly be in a position to 
strongly seek anything...

However, the plain and visible fact remains that 1Net has been given a 
very important/ central role in organisation of 'Brazil meeting', despite,

1. claims by Brazilians at and since Bali that it is they and they alone 
who are organising the meeting, as a neutral trusted broker and so on, 
while all others are 'equally' welcome....
2. clear requests, madeformallyby civil society, that they have no 
intention to go through 1Net in terms of its involvement in the Brazil 
meeting...

How does one get conferred such a role, against such adverse 
circumstances? No one for instance approached Civil Society Internet 
Governance Caucus to take up such a central role!

I think it clearly follows that if 1Net is not 'seeking' anything, there 
are some extremely, repeat, extremely, powerful people seeking such a 
role for 1Net.... I leave people to make their own guesses who these 
powerful people might be.... But this fact certainly puts 1Net is a 
certain perspective, which at the very least seems to compromise its 
supposedly open, bottom up, 'movement' character - with which kind of 
declarations it was launched...

Even before a structure - supposedly, bottom up, participative etc - is 
built for 1Net, some powerful people seem already convinced (rather, 
'know') about its role, purpose, and, I dare extrapolate, even the 
directions that it will lead to, to be so confident to be  be 
aggressively pushing it to have such a central role in organising the 
Brazil meeting....

I can see no other reason why (specific motivations) and how (the power 
of those so motivated) was, for instance, civil society denied its right 
to decide the manner of its participation in the Brazil meeting...

If 1Net is to become the front of such non transparent motivations of 
some powerful players, it puts an unfortunate shadow on its genuine 
possibilities, al least some of which I could see and appreciate.

parminder


On Friday 27 December 2013 01:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2013, at 2:04 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> The current meeting seems to have gone back on all those 'right 
>> decisions' and allowed ICANN and 1* the central role that it had 
>> always been seeking in the forthcoming meeting.
>>
>> This is my honest reading of what happened. But I may be over 
>> reacting. I am happy to be corrected by anyone..
>
> Parminder -
>
> I appreciate you sharing your perspective of events, as it is helpful. 
>  I do want to correct
> one assertion made in the above -
>
>     "... and allowed ICANN and 1* the central role that it had always 
> been seeking
>      in the forthcoming meeting. "
>
> Given that the I* were informed by Fadi about the Brazil meeting and 
> 1net's role well
> after the Montevideo Statement, I do not know how either "1net" or the 
> I* leaders could
> have been "seeking" anything...  I  will admit to probably as much 
> surprise as anyone
> else on this list, but it is what it is.
>
> At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I 
> know of no mechanism
> for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about its role 
> (whatever that may be)
> and any assertion that the I* leaders might have been seeking a role 
> in a meeting which
> which wasn't even conceived of (let alone discussed) at the time of 
> our gathering in
> Montevideo is invalid.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> Disclaimer:  My views alone. (As one of the I* leaders via my role at 
> ARIN,  I was part
>                     of the discussions that led to the Montevideo 
> Statement and the idea of
>                     a 1net initiative - that predates any discussion 
> or announcement of the
>                     Brazil meeting)
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131227/f06cda46/attachment.html>