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

Sun Jan 19 06:09:23 UTC 2014

You are correct Adam, and oh dear, we've caught out... no extended deep
discussion on root zones or Ipv6.  In fact, I think you might hard pressed
to find either of them discussed at all.

And your point.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 8:11 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative
Multistakeholder model validity

On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

> There are several other associated lists but this is the main one.
> 

Could you point to any discussions about Internet governance, I'm finding it
hard to even see any real debate/community input to the declaration you
often mention.  And any discussion about interest in the Brazil meeting and
process:  other than email from yourself, Parminder and other IT for Change
staff, and Norbert, who are all active/leaders of other civil society
processes? 

Thanks,

Adam

> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:47 PM
> To: 'Adam Peake'; discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: RE: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative 
> Multistakeholder model validity
> 
> Yes, and I've pointed to it several times on this list and on others.
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:40 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org; michael gurstein
> Subject: Re: [discuss] CI case in itself was Re: [] [] Representative 
> Multistakeholder model validity
> 
> A related question.  Michael, about the community informatics group, 
> is this the archive of the group's mailing list 
> <http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers>?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 19, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> I hope that this answers your questions.
>>> 
>> 
>> It does answer the question I asled.
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> So, I conclude that
>> 
>> a. /1net has already given you the pre-disposition you should expect 
>> with
> the list of nominees you just submitted an appeal on.  As you know I 
> am among those who think the /1net leadership, pre-SC and now the 
> /1net-sc, do have the responsibility for dealing with your appeal.  
> But the prior notice that they were only going to accept nomination 
> from certain sources was probably a clue as to how they would react to 
> a slate presented directly to them once they gave it appropriate
consideration.
>> 
>> b. the names were not submitted to any other process.
>> 
>> While other processes may not have sent the request for nominees far 
>> and
> wide, a statement that i think needs to be proven yet, I wonder did 
> you and the other Ig experienced people mentoring the CI through this 
> process know about the opportunities for getting CI members into the 
> mix while there was still time.
>> 
>> Thanks again for your reply.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 18-Jan-14 16:14, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> -----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)
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 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
processes?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 