[discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Dec 27 20:25:36 UTC 2013
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:26 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
> 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...
> I asked this question in this thread but got no response. Thanks however
for clearing this for me now. I don't think this is the right path we are
trailing especially with CS (IMHO the CS team represent the most neutral
body amongst all the stakeholders and are ofcourse closer to users). I will
strongly suggest that the LOG clear this "allegations" as it could mean a
lot to the successful running of the BR event.
> 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.
> Here 1net really need to restore confidence in this group it has started.
There are many who are already having this mindset (you can easily tell by
the few names within the long thread of discussions :) )
> On Friday 27 December 2013 01:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2013, at 2:04 PM, parminder <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.
> 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)
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss