[discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative Multistakeholder model validity

michael gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Sat Jan 18 21:14:05 UTC 2014

CI submitted its nominations to the br.cgi folks who told us to submit these
to 1net.

We submitted these nominations to 1net and were told that they were only
accepting nominations that were forwarded through CS: CC and GigaNet.

Our approach to CS: CC concerning involvement with their processes including
nominations was rebuffed. No request for nominations was circulated outside
of the 4 organizations which constitute the CS: CC.

The GigaNet process was evidently exclusive to GigaNet as no information or
request for nominations was, to my knowledge circulated outside of the
closed GigaNet list.

I hope that this answers your questions.


-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:49 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative
Multistakeholder model validity

(all cc dropped)


I have one question on all of this, did CI present its candidate list to any
other processes?  I have noticed in these processes that various people and
groups submitted the same names to different processes.  So even if CI was
holding out for either doing it own thing to establish its footprint in the
/1net movement or for the invitation it did not get to be on the joint CS
selection process, did they make sure, given the uncertainty of their
appeals, that their candidates were also considered by Academia and the  CS4


On 18-Jan-14 14 @gmail.com>> wrote:
> I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for 
> everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have 
> those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to ponder 
> and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged.

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list