[discuss] BR meeting site launched

[parminder]

On Thursday 16 January 2014 06:34 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>
> Parminder:
>
> You state below “I for one dont see why 1Net needs to do an organising 
> role when multistakeholder Brazil meeting organising committees are in 
> place...”  Pardon my ignorance, but I am not aware of these 
> “multistakeholder Brazil meeting organising committees.”
>

Greg

There are 4 such committees ... pl see 
http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html

The question being that when we have these multi-stakeholder committees 
what should/ would 1Net be doing in terms of organising the meeting... 
But no one seems to be interested in responding.

parminder


> Can you or others on this list provide some specific information 
> regarding these committees, and any links to websites, email lists or 
> any other internet presence for these committees?
>
> Thanks!
>
>  ...
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> *From:*discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:44 AM
> *To:* Milton L Mueller
> *Cc:* discuss at 1net.org
> *Subject:* Re: [discuss] BR meeting site launched
>
> On Wednesday 15 January 2014 07:55 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>     >Several members of the 1net Steering Committee communicated
>
>     >on the Steering Committee email list that they were deeply
>     uncomfortable
>
>     >with the announcement in the Brazilian 10 Jan press release of
>     1net's supposed
>
>     > role in the Brazilian meeting  without the Steering Committee,
>
>     Anja:
>
>     I’ve been looking through the archives and must say that I am
>     somewhat disappointed with these expressions.
>
>     I think there have been several indications, going back to
>     mid-November, that the 1net steering committee would be appointing
>     nonstate actors to the 4 committees that would be programming the
>     Brazil meeting. After going through a laborious and contentious
>     process of appointing people to this committee to do just that, I
>     am wondering why Vladimir and others are suddenly expressing fear
>     and loathing at the idea that they are actually responsible for
>     doing something (and quickly).
>
>
>  {Parminder} You constantly refuse to acknowledge evidence given to 
> you that whoever is pushing 1Net seems to have made this announcement 
> without authorisation, and that the Brazilians soon after made an 
> announcement that clearly seemed to nullify the one you are talking 
> about. Overall there clearly being a lot of back and foth on the issue...
>
> If you read this message: 
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/2014-January/000042.html 
>  you will find a 1net person saying that he thinks the LOC should 
> spend weeks negotiating with the newly appointed 1net committee aboiut 
> what it should do, rather than starting to execute. If this is 
> correct, and I am not misreading it, I would suggest that committee 
> members who are not ready to spring into action are leeting down the 
> communities that appointed them.
>
>
> {Parminder} When IGC and BestBits contributed to their appointment, 
> 1Net was being mooted just as a cross stakeholder discussion space. 
> John Curran among others have said this repeatedly on this list, and 
> he should know. It is this reason that while I welcomed such a 
> platform I paid little attention to selection of its SC. In fact, in 
> taking on a completely different role without referring back to the 
> concerned 'communities' the committee members will be going beyond the 
> mandate they have... I for one dont see why 1Net needs to do an 
> organising role when multistakeholder Brazil meeting organising 
> committees are in place... Why this duplication... Anyone who proposes 
> such duplication has to make the case for it. To me it is completely 
> inexplicable.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> I would encourage you and Validimir to reconsider your ‘deep 
> discomfort’ or at least articulate a better idea of what you think you 
> _/should/_ be doing on that committee.
>
>
>
>
>
> * * *
>
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential 
> and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, 
> you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply 
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not 
> copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any 
> other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> * * *
>
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform 
> you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax 
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is 
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the 
> purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or 
> applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or 
> recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140116/a8ef4ae5/attachment.html>