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

[Adam Peake]

On Jan 19, 2014, at 3:09 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

> You are correct Adam, and oh dear, we've caught out... no extended deep
> discussion on root zones or Ipv6.

Little or no discussion of any issue for the Brazil meeting, not even discussion about the group's own declaration. Where's the interest?  

>  In fact, I think you might hard pressed
> to find either of them discussed at all.
> 
> And your point.
> 


Looks like the members of the community informatics (CI) group interested in Internet governance are already active and longstanding contributors, have represented and continue to represent civil society in many Internet governance processes, were part of the process of selecting CS members of the Brazil meeting committees and 1Net steering committee organized by the coordinating group.  I don't see how any CI point of view would not be represented so long as they have you, Norbert Bollow and the team from IT for Change leading CI on this topic.  

You sent a note yesterday "A Community Informatics Perspective on Privacy/Surveillance" with a link to an article from the magazine The American Prospect and commented "Somehow I can’t see any of the current “stakeholders” raising, let alone conceiving, of these issues. Why real diversity matters…  … as we wait for a reply from Inet."
 
Yet the article quotes Joana Varon at length -- Joana is a member of the 1Net steering committee, proposed by the CS coordinating group.  Marco Civil mentioned in the article has been discussed at length by organizations that make up the civil society coordinating group, and suggested by a few of us a possible topic for the Brazil meeting, etc.  So what point are you trying to make?  The CI group clearly is represented by the CS groups that make up the coordinating group, the issues you say (often rightly) are important are well understood and represented by the CS groups that make up the coordinating group.

Adam



> 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
>> 
>>