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

Sat Jan 18 14:14:07 UTC 2014

FWIW, I agree with this point by Joe, that this timeline focuses too much on Snowden.

One should at least start at WSIS in Tunis 2005, so that IGF, UN/GA and CSTD processes are included as well. Just like last 10 years of story in ITU/T regarding changes of documents at the last number of plenipot and the events/outcome at WCIT2012.

   Patrik

On 18 jan 2014, at 11:28, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Colleagues:
> 
> I think that this timescale is way too Snowden centric.  Much of the motivation for stakeholder interest in this process is the concern that there is a growing trend of multilateralism at the expense of mutlistakeholderism.  That also seemed to be a major motivation of interest in Bali.  I think we should recall the promotion of mutlistakeholderism as an essential motivator.... For me Snowden is more of a related and coincidental event rather than driver, even while recognizing that it is an issue of great interest...
> 
> Joe
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 9:09 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
>> Here’s the sequence of events as I understand them:
>>  
>> 1. Snowden revelations
>> 2. Montevideo statement, prompted at least partially by Snowden revelations (pwilson, “what is 1net to me”)
>> 3. Brazilian reaction to Snowden revelations
>> 4. Fadi meets Dilma – Brazil conference jointly conceived at this meeting
>> 5. ensuing chaos as people try to figure out who is doing what
>> 6. 1net conceived as a conceptual way for (non-governmental?) actors to collaborate (presumably on reforms)
>> 7.chaos within every constituency as each struggles with questions of legitimacy and inclusiveness in representation
>>  
>> Shortly after 1net was conceived I think people began to realise that the time frame and methodology of Brazil was unlikely to meet the aspirations. Hence the thought that something should continue as a longer term effort aimed at reform. Therefore efforts aimed at giving 1net a more permanent structure.
>>  
>> None of this should be too surprising. Beginnings of anything involve a certain amount of chaos and uncertainty, and I don’t expect these to disappear quickly as we attempt to find ways to work together in addressing some substantial issues, while maintaining substantial independence for constituencies to act according to their own priorities and motivations. 
>>  
>> In this context, I like this quote -
>>  
>> “In the beginning, there was Chaos. Chaos nurtures Progress. Progress enhances Order. Order tries to defy Chaos at all cost. But my friend, if and when Order wins the final battle against Chaos, I will mourn. 'Cause Progress will be dead.”
>>  
>> Ian Peter
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: parminder
>> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:56 AM
>> To: 1Net List
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched
>>  
>>  
>> On Wednesday 15 January 2014 09:03 PM, 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:
>>>  
>>> <!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]-->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.
>> 
>> {Parminder} Also please add here, created by ICANN....
>> 
>>> That is the only reason many of us are participating in it.
>> 
>> {Parminder} Not true... Show me one email when Steering committee selections by different communities that this purpose was put forward... I only heard about it is as a discussion platform. Will try and fetch back emails from civil society lists. But let Ian the chair of one of the civil society mechanisms which made the selection tell us what did they think 1Net was for which they were making selections. Ian has said that he is against 1Net being conduit to the Brazilian organisers for civil society nominees for organising committees . Clearly shows that the civil society structure that made the nominations did not see 1Net in an Brazil meeting organising role. Can you refute this evidence? 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.”
>> 
>> {Parminder} Why are there then the 4 (already too many?) Brazil meeting organising committees in place if 1Net is also to be involved in organising... This simply makes no sense. Although I can understand ICANN's and perhaps your motivation for supporting this outside illegitimate structure to keep its fingers and arms deep inside the meeting organising system. Such a duplication is a recipe for disaster.
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>  
>>> <!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->What should be the role of 1Net towards major IG fora - IGF, ICANN, ITU, and other?
>>>  
>>> No role. See above.
>>>  
>>> <!--[if !supportLists]-->3.       <!--[endif]-->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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140118/3c5f3f19/signature.asc>