[discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched

Wed Jan 15 16:28:36 UTC 2014

This is what the 1net.org main page says ...

"Safeguarding the Internet's Public Trust

On 7 October 2013 the leaders of organizations responsible for coordination
of the Internet technical infrastructure globally met in Montevideo,
Uruguay, to consider current issues affecting the future of the Internet.

They issued the following
statement<http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/montevideo-statement-on-the-future-of-internet-cooperation/>
.

Following the Montevideo Statement, the community met at the 2013 IGF in
Bali to further discuss community wide efforts towards achieving these
objectives and engaging with the broad community, including civil society,
business, technical community, governments, and academia.

As part of the multistakeholder approach, /1net is hosting an open, global
online discussion about Internet governance. Contribute to the conversation
by joining the mailing list of the movement."

Besides the obvious separate box about the meeting in Brazil, there is NO
reference in the text above to the Brazil meeting and the original idea of
starting 1net was to create an open dialog, and as far as I remember for
the initial emails exchanges with John Curran the Brazil meeting was part
of the dialog.

Regards

Jorge

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> I think it is useful to give guys at Steering a chance to explain what
> their concerns are, and why they have decided to propose us these
> questions. But I tend to agree with Milton and Avri. A lot of people came
> together in 1net at the present moment because there will be a conference
> in Brazil. If 1net should play a role afterwards in other topics (I think
> it could), this should be discussed after Brazil and after people here are
> given the chance to stay or leave the platform. To enlarge the scope of
> goals could be uncomfortable, as 1net could start pushing topics that part
> of the people here did not sign up to. And, with the little time we have,
> we need to stay focused.
> My two cents.
>
> Marília
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I pretty much endorse this point of view.  My only caveat is that once
>> they have done the job in Brazil, will be the time to talk about whether
>> there is any other function for the /1net.  I tend to think there might be.
>>
>> But now is not the time for those discussion.  At this point cooperating
>> in the organization of the Brazil meeting to help it be all it can be, is
>> the only task.
>>
>> After actually doing something and hopefully doing it well, we can all
>> discuss how to move beyond Brazil.
>>
>> Note, I don't think it would ever be responsible in taking action in the
>> groups of which it is constituted.  It is not, and I don't think will ever
>> be, its role to fix an I* or Civil Society or Academia or a Business
>> participant.
>>
>> As for the IGF being supportive and not dismissive and replicative is
>> enough for now.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15-Jan-14 10:33, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> Vladimir:
>>>
>>> Tacitly, I have already given you my answer to this in the message that
>>> appeared 30 minutes earlier; however, let me address your questions
>>> directly:
>>>
>>> 1.How do you see the role and potentials of 1Net? What should be its
>>>
>>> task in a wider IG context?
>>>
>>> 1net has no real task in a “wider IG context.” Nor was it created to
>>> fund medical research to cure cancer, to run a film festival or to write
>>> a philosophical treatise. 1net was created with the specific purpose of
>>> coordinating and mobilizing non-state actor input and representation in
>>> the Brazil meeting. That is the only reason many of us are participating
>>> in it. We do not need and do not want yet another email list or yet
>>> another IG organization aside from that task. Performing the Brazil
>>> meeting preparatory role will be a full time task and I think I speak
>>> for a lot of people in academia and civil society when I say that we
>>> will be very disappointed if you fail to perform that task properly and
>>> spend the next two months ruminating about your “role.”
>>>
>>> 2.What should be the role of 1Net towards major IG fora - IGF, ICANN,
>>>
>>> ITU, and other?
>>>
>>> No role. See above.
>>>
>>> 3.What relation should 1Net have with the Brazil meeting?
>>>
>>>
>>> You should fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the news release
>>> from the Brazilian organizers. That is not a “suggestion” - it is your
>>> only reason for existence. To ask whether or not 1net should be a
>>> partner in the preparation of the Brazil meeting is like someone elected
>>> to the U.S. Congress turning to his constituents and asking whether he
>>> should be a supreme court judge or a medical doctor or an astronaut.
>>>   Where did you get the idea that the 1net coordinating committee was
>>> appointed for no specific reason and should sit around and define its
>>> own role?
>>>
>>> Milton L Mueller
>>>
>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>>
>>> Internet Governance Project
>>>
>>> http://internetgovernance.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140115/c0638529/attachment.html>