[discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance

Joe Alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Sun Jan 12 21:54:06 UTC 2014


I wanted to clarify that for business this is and has been consistently articulated as our position.  The members of committees are there to act as liaisons to the broader stakeholder community.  And while ICC/BASIS may have taken the lead in coordinating and nominating, our consultation will not be limited to the companies and associations that are ICC, BASIS or related association members - this will be a broader business stakeholder consultation.  This is one of the reasons why we have stressed the need for clear agendas in advance of meetings, consultation periods between meetings and detailed reports of meetings.   

I have one request to make of sectoral participants who may not be part of ICC/BASIS other participating association membership, and we make the same request within the memberships...  this is a process we have learned from dealing with some complex issues in policy development for business representation into OECD.  We ask that subgroups within the business stakeholder group try to coalesce around a position that represents the collective subgroup point of view on a given issue/question.  The reason we ask for this is that trying to efficiently build consensus across 5 or 6 varying group positions is difficult enough, it is exponentially more complex to try to do so across nuanced positions of dozens or hundreds of individual companies.  We will be working on developing/elaborating these consultation mechanisms in the coming week.  We were hoping to get more information on the timing of the meeting process, but will revert again to our continued request for clarity of agendas and documentation with proper notice and consultation periods.  In our development of a consultation process, we will try to also identify an "in case of emergency break glass process" should appropriate time periods not be provided for the more deliberate consultation process at some point in the meeting development.


----- Original Message -----
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com
To: discuss at 1net.org
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:40:26 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on	Internet Governance

In message 
<CAD_dc6hLmXDMEPW9BpgqfbRz2PN9Z_iNdh4P8zbJk0uSrPDn5Q at mail.gmail.com>, at 
09:17:37 on Sun, 12 Jan 2014, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> 
>The way I see it, 1Net has 5 members in her 4 stakeholder 
>representation which makes 20. There is a br event that requires 1Net 
>to provide 3x4(stakeholders) for HLMC and 8 names for the EMC. 
>Coincidentally, this still sum up to 20, as it's important that those 
>who were nominated to coordinate/steer 1Net represent at the br event 
>for proper reporting, follow-up and accountability. So the 1Net 
>committee should just determine how they split into the HLMC and EMC 
>for the one time br event.

That's an interesting idea, but aren't the people in Brazil representing 
(and reporting back to) their stakeholder groups, rather than 1net?
Roland Perry

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list