[discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
Michael R. Nelson
mrnelson at microsoft.com
Fri Dec 27 22:46:36 UTC 2013
Thank you so much for providing context and focus. Given the volume and variety of traffic on this list, it might be more efficient if we created a second list narrowly focused on planning, announcements, and logistics for the meeting in Brazil. Thoughts?
Michael R. Nelson
Principal Technology Policy Strategist
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org <discuss-bounces at 1net.org> on behalf of joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 12:43:18 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
I think it may be useful to go back to the origins of the discussion
list based on the meetings that occurred at the IGF in Bali. Since we
have moved forward from where we were in Bali, this post is not meant to
be determinative of the functions of 1Net, but I though some of the
context of origin, at least from my perspective, might be useful.
Bali was in many ways of maelstrom of confusion related to what the
Brazil meeting was and what it might accomplish. The various meetings
of the day, or hour, were problematic as information was not consistent
across meetings. The newness and formative nature of the Brazil event
also resulted in mixed signals emerging from relevant government
officials during the Bali meeting. The general state of confusion and
concern about both the potential for unintended consequences as well as
a possible lost opportunity if we didn't get it right made many people
across stakeholder groups ask for greater clarity and more participative
coordination. Concepts of a website and a distribution list were floated
as possible ways forward. A main task at hand was the near-term need to
help shape the Brazil meeting. To that end there was a discussion of
using such a distribution list as a platform for organization. There
were also discussions of how to assure that stakeholder groups were
appropriately represented in the process, which is where the concept of
nominating what we in the business stakeholder group call liaisons as
opposed to representatives (We do so because we do not believe that a
practical number of persons for the purpose of organization could be
sufficiently representative of the breadth of business perspectives.
Thus, in our view, liaisons are there to coordinate with other
stakeholders, but only "represent" on decisions which have been
validated in a broader consultation process among their respective
While the Brazil meeting was the near-term imperative, it was not the
only consideration. In Bali there was a general dialog on the
importance of the multi-stakeholder process and a generalized concern
that it was under some level of duress in some camps that favored pure
multilateral process. There were of course issues of what
multistakeholder may mean or the scope of its remit; which issues have
been replayed on this list as well. Apart from Brazil, it was thought
that this discussion might include discussion of how to assure the
multistakeholder role across the various relevant meetings in related
fora that will be taking place through 2014 and beyond. Finally there
was a general agreement on the importance and value of the IGF with
assurances that these discussions and the Brazil meeting were meant to
supplement/complement the IGF, not replace or displace it. There were
also discussions on how these consultation platforms might help address
some issues raised by developing nations that were not sufficiently
addressed at the IGF, either through proposing improvements in the IGF
or developing supplemental references to other resources.
Nothing above should dictate what the actual role of 1Net should be from
now into the future, but we should recognize that a number of the issues
raised need to be addressed. I do agree with a number of commentators
on the list that we need to coalesce around a common meaning and mission
for 1Net if it is to mean anything. While recognizing the important
role that CGI already plays in the outreach across stakeholders in
Brazil, we should also understand the role 1Net or the global
stakeholder groups individually need to play in relation to Brazil to
assure that the event promotes and reflects the importance and inclusion
of the stakeholder communities globally.
I thought a reflection back may help inform the path forward. Others
should feel free to supplement with their Bali recollections, beyond the
fact that the snow yesterday made me miss the heat during the walk from
the hotel to conference center...
On 12/27/2013 7:50 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There is little doubt (at least in my mind) that a seated 1net coordinating committee can
>>> establish exactly what role 1net will take on with respect to making appointments to any
>>> international meeting committees.
>> I thought 1net was being proposed as an open discussion platform, not an appointments and committee generating entity.
>> Feels like you guys are pushing too hard to create additional hats and chairs without yet making it clear what are the real intentions behind 1net.
> Jorge -
> I frankly couldn't care less whether 1net makes any appointments to any committees;
> it is indeed intended as an open discussion platform. I simply believe that it is polite
> for 1net to respond in some manner if asked to make appointments.
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss