[discuss] BR meeting site launched

Vladimir Radunovic vladar at diplomacy.edu
Wed Jan 15 16:37:39 UTC 2014

Milton, Avri,


Thanks for your comments, finally we are discussing 1Net on 1Net list   :)


I'm offering you my personal views:

-          Steering Committee (SC) was selected for 1Net, not for Brazil
meeting (Brazil meeting has its own committees). Whether 1Net was supposed
to contribute to Brazil meeting and in what way - the understanding of this
has been changing (and is still being shaped by the discussions). What the
mandate of 1Net was/is, that's a separate issue.

-          What is the mandate of 1Net? While following closely all the
discussions and emails, the only "formal" document about its mandate
(prepared by I* who pushed for it) is on 1Net web: http://1net.org/. The
reference to Brazil meeting is very scarce - on "About" page even not a
single one. In such a situation where mandate is not clear, the most we can
is take this as a starting point, discuss further through community how they
see what 1Net should be for (and if it should exist), and use the elected
Steering Committee to guide further. 

-          Principally, I don't support that anyone, including Brazil
organising committees, decides on roles and responsibilities of 1Net,
without consultations with 1Net SC that has been selected for such purpose
(even though not constituted fully yet) and SC with 1Net community. If we
allow that, what is the purpose and legitimacy of 1Net then? Of course we
understand the practical needs of the Brazil meeting organisers and the help
1Net can provide, even the tight timeframe in which they operate, but this
is not a valid excuse for not consulting with 1Net. Otherwise, one may say
(with full rights) "if 1Net was not there when Brazilians tasked it, who did
acknowledge this on their behalf? ICANN/I*? If so, then 1Net is nothing more
but their tool even now when the SC has been selected". We have already seen
such opinions, and if we wish to strengthen 1Net legitimacy through
achieving wide support of the community, then we need to avoid such traps
and request for a two-way communication with all partners.

-          Whether 1Net should be a partner in Brazil meeting, I think it
could, but the details need to be discussed. This is where SC is tasked to
interact with community and guide based on the views - certainly not to
decide on its own, let alone to be directed by others. The same should be
when it comes to relations of 1Net with ICANN work, IGF, even ITU, possibly
Freedom Online conference, etc.

-          Whether 1Net should be responsible for selecting the
representatives of stakeholder groups for Brazil meeting committees, I do
not agree: respective stakeholder constituencies should select their
representatives on their own, through established (or emerging) internal
processes no meter how (im)perfect these currently are. Not only that it
would be practically complex for a diverse 1Net SC to conduct such
selections, but it would be principally incorrect, IMHO. The most 1Net SC
should do in this regard is assisting the Brazilian organisers to get in
touch with respective communities if needed. Whether, in future, 1Net should
become a community trusted to conduct selection of stakeholder
representatives to other bodies (even MAG, ICANN or whatever), we may
certainly discuss it further - but for this to become valid, 1Net needs to
acquire great legitimacy and community support itself; due to a clumsy
beginning (and not only that) this is unfortunately not the case yet. Let's
firstly try to strengthen the 1Net.


Please let me know of your views on this. Am always happy to cross views in
a constructive way.









-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Avri Doria
Sent: 15 January 2014 15:44
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] BR meeting site launched




I agree with this.  But perhaps go further.


I am rather shocked at the inaction of the /1net-sc.  They were chosen and
with very few dissenting voices (there are always a very few dissenting
voices - often I am one of them) charged with working with CGI.etc on the
rest of the issues.


Issues like determining how to handle CI's request; e.g. judging the degree
to which this was a valid claim and if valid doing something to ameliorate.
And yes, that amelioration would require consultation with the discuss list
and with those who made the original recommendations. 

They need to clarify issues of inclusiveness.  And they need to at least
respond to a request indicating the process they intend to follow.  It is
what steering committees do.


Issues like organizing the efforts moving forward.  For example, I thought
there was a rough consensus that they were going to be the responsible ones
in terms of non-governmental particpation for the Brazil meeting.  Yes they
were going to discuss these issues with this discuss list but they were
going to steer and get things done.


Yet now one of their number writes and say: Oh no, it is not us.  Sure they
should be upset if the site was changed without consulting them, but not
because it says they are now the point of contact.  If they aren't, then
what does it mean to be a steering committee.


Please don't dither this opportunity away!






On 15-Jan-14 09:00, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>     >The website has just changed - I'm not sure exactly when, but Google

>     cache is still showing the old version -


>     >and the new version now claims that "The meeting is a partnership

>     between CGI.br and /1net."

>     >Under whose authority was this change made?  Why was it not even

>     discussed on the 1net list?


>     Same question to you as to Parminder: where have you been? The

>     Brazil meeting has ALWAYS been an initiative that arose out of an

>     agreement between the President of Brazil and the President of

>     ICANN. ICANN and the signatories of the Montevideo Statement then

>     attempted to broaden their engagement with the nonstate actors by

>     forming 1net, and the Brazilian govt delegated most of the work to

>     CGI, because they are actually capable of doing it.


>     I am not so much disagreeing with your point as I am puzzled by the

>     irrelevance of your question.


>     Please explain to me what purpose you think you are serving by

>     trying to provoke a wrangle over the "authority" for such things? Do

>     you really want every word on the web site to be based on a

>     negotiated consensus, or are your tring to make some more important

>     point that is not evident in your message?


>     In the absence of universally applicable institutionalized

>     mechanisms for representation, all "authority" in this space is

>     self-initiated and based voluntary associated and networked

>     relations. It's kind a like the Internet. Deal with it.




> _______________________________________________

> discuss mailing list

>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

>  <http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>




discuss mailing list

 <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140115/32627b2a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list