[discuss]  The future of 1net
onovoa at Antel.com.uy
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.
> 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.
>> On 4/28/2014 6:36 AM, Dr. Ben Fuller wrote:
>> 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.
>>> 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?
>>>> 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.
>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>> Dr Ben fuller
>> ben at fuller.na
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
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.
More information about the discuss