[discuss] [] The future of 1net

Tue Apr 29 12:57:56 UTC 2014

I find 1net very usefull, there is a lot of background noise but is fairly easy to differentiate between usefull mails and the rest, there is a lot of this "rest".
It takes some time and effort but I think it is worth while.
Best regards,
Osvaldo Novoa

> El 28/04/2014, a las 08:45, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> escribió:
>
> I would think we need more than interesting discussion topics to make
> 1net functional and stop the creation of 1net filters by current list
> participants.   To many 1net has become a subscription based denial of
> service attack, or at least a no longer productive forum.  We have to
> walk a very fine line between developing a list that can add value or
> creating a list that stifles expression and innovation.  Perhaps before
> we get to actual discussion topics, we should follow one of I believe
> George's earlier posts about adding some needed discipline and respect
> to the list.  One thing might be to have a, or a few, collective
> objective(s)?  Another might be to have some designated moderators
> (neutral adults in the room...)... These are thrown out there as for
> examples, the merits of which might benefit from group discussion.
>
> In order to abide by the disciplines we have espoused so far, I have
> created a new thread - the future of 1net...
>
> Let the discussion and green fielding begin.
>
> Joe
>> On 4/28/2014 6:36 AM, Dr. Ben Fuller wrote:
>> Marilyn,
>>
>> Giving some focus to1net is an excellent idea. George Sadowsky has been urging us to have some discipline as well.  In looking at the document, there are a number of issues appearing in the road map that are gathered together thematically. Perhaps we can use these as a guide for setting up discussion areas on 1net.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I welcome this discussion.
>>> I am a new MAG member from business. I know, the list is breaking into peals of laughter, but it is true! This is my first year to be on the MAG.
>>>
>>> thus, although I have attended all MAG meetings /open consultations, and like many of you, worked to make the MAG members as open as possible, I now have a MAG responsibility, so I want to fulfill that.
>>>
>>> What I would find incredibly helpful is the following:
>>>
>>> -While fully recognizing that the IGF has a process and responsibility to fulfill our present path, how do we incorporate learnings from NETmundial  into our planning?
>>>
>>> -We have a main session on IG /Evolution of the IG Ecosystem, and I am part of that planning team, along with many others:  Specific input to how workshops that are also proposed that are relevant to topics that were reflected in NETmundial might come into that session in a useful, practical, and pragmatic way are going to be VERY helpful.
>>>
>>> -We have a number of workshops proposed which are inclusive of topics that were reflected in NETmundial: organizers of those workshops can be invited [invited/not compelled] to consider how they reflect NETmundial statement into their workshop.
>>>
>>> I found NETmundial an amazing experience and experiment, and I was privileged to be able to attend.
>>>
>>> I offer us all three suggestions:
>>>
>>> -NETmundial suggested that there are various fora where the outputs of NETmundial can be discussed farther/the IGF was mentioned many times, but we need to recognize that we have work to do in many fora, including at a national level.
>>> -At NETmundial, some topics were seemingly advanced.  NETmundial Statement is a sort of rough consensus/that was not the term used, but it was a truely advanced collaboration across stakeholders.
>>> -I am at CSTD WG EC next week, and the NETmundial Statement will be so much a part of our discussions.
>>>
>>> Okay, it is four suggestions:
>>>
>>> 1NET discuss has not yet found commonality of topics that brings together a coherent focus that brings in a wide diversity of contributors. That is a fact that we all want to move past, and we want, undoubtedly, to make 1NET discuss meaningful.
>>>
>>> So, my fourth proposal is that we strive to find subjects from NETmundial, establish different discussions, and strive to advance a multi stakeholder discussion that is civil, statesmanlike, and works to progress commonality where possible in various topics.
>>>
>>> The section for further work, under the Roadmap might be a place to start.
>>>
>>> But that will require some restraint from all: that will require civility in our posting, mutual respect, even when we disagree.
>>>
>>> When the IGF was first launched, civility was often lacking in exchanges. We had an immensely influential spirit guide -- Nitan -- who coached us, mentored us, and today, at the IGF, we do disagree, often quite strongly and passionately, but we are civil in the discourse, and in the disagreements.
>>>
>>> During NETmundial, a similar spirit emerged. With some defined topics that can benefit from a broad, civil discussion, respecting differences, about a broad range of topics.
>>>
>>> I hope to see the influence of this spirit into 1NET.
>>>
>>> All can benefit so much from thoughtful discussion, informed discussion, expression of different points of views.  But, I do have a criteria for whom I listen to, and I listen as much to CS, technical community, governments, as I listen to business: and that is fact based and civility, even in different and even passionately held views.  The benefit of 1NET is that I can listen to diverse voices, but I can't if it is only noise and hostility, and lack of substance and lack of organization of topics. That is because it comes across at static.
>>>
>>> this is not a criticism of anyone. It is an appeal.
>>>
>>> I made a statement during NETmundial: we can talk about tough topics, but not in a tough way.
>>>
>>> Recently, George Sadowsky has proposed some evolution of our discourse processes for 1NET.
>>>
>>> I too want to make 1NET a trusted space to talk about tough topics, but in a civil and mutually respectful manner. And with some organization so that participants can select where/which topics most engage them.
>>>
>>> If we do that, we will make 1NET a truly collaborative, and contributing to the broader discussions about IG evolution, and we will build on the spirit of NETmundial.
>>>
>>> And, we will draw so many more to post and contribute to 1NET.
>>> Shall we try?
>>>
>>> M
>>> -
>>>
>>>> From: jcurran at istaff.org
>>>> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 08:01:37 -0500
>>>> To: iza at anr.org
>>>> CC: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; discuss at 1net.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I echo with Avri and Raul mostly, but being a MAG member and also a former member of CSTD Working Group for the IGF improvement, I like add one more element.
>>>>>
>>>>> IGF itself and MAG in particular have the Open Consultation process and our coming next Open Consultation is there within a few weeks time in Paris.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be very nice if lessens learned from NETMundial be presented in a way of concrete proposals and suggestions from anyone into the Open Consultation.
>>>>>
>>>>> So that MAG members and all stakeholders engaged will be able to consider these and go beyond the current state of play.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean, MAG (members) per se does not have power to change IGF by itself, but collective voice and work will have. I like to be the servant for that.
>>>> Izumi -
>>>>
>>>> Excellent points. I think we need to consider the format and lessons from NETmundial,
>>>> and figure out how to advance the cause of Internet Governance; what I cannot discern
>>>> is how much of the NETmundial format and output development process should be drawn
>>>> into IGF and/or whether having a linkage to a periodic IGF-affiliated "NETmundial-like"
>>>> meeting to work on solution exploration for one or two topics would be a better format.
>>>> An affiliated meeting would have the advantage of being able to immediately adopt some
>>>> of the MS participation and outcome development benefits of the NETmundial approach,
>>>> and it could be fed from the set of issue exploration sessions on a given topic from the prior
>>>> IGF meeting(s). It might also be somewhat easier for the IGF partner with such a meeting
>>>> than to attempt to evolve one or more days of its existing agenda and processes to achieve
>>>> the same result.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of the approach taken, we do need to strengthen the IGF, including its
>>>> mandate, financial resources, and intersessional dialogue capabilities. Progress
>>>> in these areas will benefit all regardless of the approach taken to provide for more
>>>> detailed and actionable outcome development.
>>>>
>>>> /John
>>>>
>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> ________________
>> Dr Ben fuller
>> ben at fuller.na
>> http://www.fuller.na
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información

This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.