[discuss] BR meeting site launched

Wed Jan 15 17:26:06 UTC 2014

Vladi's points below are thoughtful, they I do not agree with all of them..

Anyway let me comment on this assertion being provided - by a few people 
here, mostly 1Net SC members - that 1Net was given this organising role 
without consulting it. Everyone can see that there is something 
inherently strange on someone being given such a big, coveted role, in 
this manner... Is there a proverbial elephant in the room ...

Why do we want to close our eyes to the obvious power plays.. About how 
earlier unilateral announcements were made that 1Net will fill in Brazil 
committee, which Brazilians seem to have refuted, but then again this 
role seems to have been wrested back... So, why such surprise suddenly 
that 1Net is now announced to be an equal partner in the Brazil meeting.

BTW, interesting, on the eve of the LOG meeting on the 10th, Hartmut 
made the following public announcement including on this list

"Initially the meeting on the 10th was intended to be for the planning 
committees in relation to the BR Meeting. However, the late notice of 
course doesn't enable all to identify let alone schedule to participate. 
This will be a meeting about logistics&infrastructure. As a result 
though, LOG welcome someone from 1Net to participate and would ask that 
the steering committee identify a participant. The main focus of this 
meeting is to discuss issues related to the local organization of the 
event, aspects related to the infrastructure and details of financial 
resources needed to prepare the event. This meeting will NOT discuss 
issues related to Internet Governance and/or other themes."

  Someone than reported here that  Fadi is going to Brazil for the 10th 
meeting. Evidently, (if I have to go by Hartmut;s message) even the LOG 
or CGI.Br did not know what was going to come from the meeting...

And then we have this big announcement that changes the nature of the 
meeting to be  partnership between CGi.Br and 1Net. There other 
significant things in the announcement like while earlier the exec 
committee was to have 4 chairs, one from each stakeholder group - it 
become just 2, from 1Net and CGI... and so on.

Evidently, ICANN really wields a lot of power here... That was not the 
image of the Brazil meeting that I started with, and also not of a lots 
and lots of other groups and actors..

Again, this is just too complicated... There is a limit to which these 
elaborate shenanigans can be followed. And my own limit is fast 
approaching. An open, honest and purposeful meeting could be hosted with 
so much lesser fuss.... What is the game in all this.

parminder

On Wednesday 15 January 2014 10:07 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Best,
>
>                 Vlada
>
> -----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
>
> Hi,
>
> 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!
>
> avri
>
> 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
>
> > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> discuss mailing list
>
> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140115/2481d9eb/attachment-0001.html>