[discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance
roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Sun Jan 12 12:05:03 UTC 2014
In message <C2E6585B-A1A5-4E54-94E5-0EDD4AF4A883 at gmail.com>, at 12:13:41
on Sun, 12 Jan 2014, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> writes
>>> There’s clearly a potential tension here that may not be resolved
>>>to everyone’s satisfaction. For the 1Net SC to only act as a
>>>conduit to LOG per Seun, there’d have to be agreement on which peak
>>>associations/networks can nominate. But we see not only with CS but
>>>also business that there are folks saying who decided that only xyz
>>>peak association/network can nominate? So if the SC simply passes
>>>along those nominations, it may get accused of deciding to exclude
>>>others, thereby demonstrating that 1Net is a grand design of dark
>>>unaccountable forces to control the universe, etc.
>> If the SC passes them all on, how does an exclusion arise?
>Again, if xyz networks give the SC nominations we’re supposed to just
>pass on, what do we do if we receive nominations from abc networks? Are
>you suggesting we just send everything and kick the can down the road
>to the LOG?
That's one potential interpretation of the request LOC gave you.
> I don’t think they want it, but sure, I suppose we could be utterly
>unhelpful like this.
Although as well as just "kicking the can" you could add some helpful
notes explaining who ABC and XYZ are, and presenting the information in
a single well-formatted submission, rather than lots of random emails.
Also sending acknowledgements back to the ABC and XYZ's, along with
managing the process of "shutting the door" after the closing date.
>Maybe they’ll anyway receive nominations from CS networks that
>don’t want to work through this process, as discussed elsewhere.
It seems to me likely that they might.
>>> If instead we say ok anyone can nominate and the 1Net SC should do
>>>due diligence and select to ensure diversity and inclusion per Avri,
>>>then the SC has to pick among contending nominations. In which case
>>>it may get accused of deciding to exclude others, thereby
>>>demonstrating that 1Net is a grand design of dark unaccountable
>>>forces to control the universe, etc.
>>> As a member of the SC, I’m not excited about the prospect of us
>>>being put in position where we will stand accused no matter what we do.
>> You (the SC) have two options, as you describe above.
>Right, and I’m asking that people come to some consensus about which
>one we should do…?
Hurrah - a positive task for the list at last.
>> Which of the two tasks did LOC ask you to perform?
>You’re on the same mailing lists I am, you know the LOG hasn’t
>taken it upon itself to be specific about 1Net’s internal modalities.
Although I'm many of the same lists, I haven't had time to read all the
postings, and I'm also aware of the possibility of "yes we asked them",
"no they didn't", "but now they have" types of message appearing in the
sequence of postings. It's quite difficult to keep up, and make sure the
person with the latest news isn't actually carrying superceded news.
>They said send the nominations, full stop.
When (eg) the UN asks for nominations for the MAG, they mean "a short
list from which we will select".
When (eg) the Civil Society Caucus asks [its membership] for
nominations, it's for candidates from which an (internal) NomCom
So there are several well known modalities already available to choose
from (that is, different assumptions might be made about what might be
going on inside the 1net SC).
More information about the discuss