[discuss] Br official site launched
jeremy at ciroap.org
Tue Jan 28 13:56:18 UTC 2014
On 28 Jan 2014, at 8:40 pm, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
> >*sigh* We keep hearing this, but why? There is no consensus on this list that the Brazil meeting can or should be a partnership with 1net, and (unless I missed it?) the archives of the steering list indicate that no such decision has been authorised there either.
> Sigh. We keep hearing this from a few people, but why? It has been clear from the beginning that the whole meeting was based on an alliance between the Brazilian government and ICANN, and that both of them agreed that 1net would handle the nonstate actor side of the process. If 1net is not involved with the Brazil meeting stop the train and let me get off, there is utterly no point to being here if it’s not.
What you are saying would make very good sense Milton, if only it wasn't at variance with the plain facts. 1net did not even exist at the time when the Brazilian government and ICANN conceived the meeting, and once 1net was later announced, it was sold to us on the express basis that we the stakeholders could decide whether, and how, it would be involved with the Brazil meeting. Indeed some of the technical community stakeholders were the least keen to focus on the Brazil meeting at that time.
But since then, all the arrangements that have been made for 1net to take a special role in the Brazil meeting have been made with the man behind the curtain, not with the members of the 1net mailing list, nor even the (then inchoate) 1net steering committee. 1net has just been a smokescreen for the technical community to deal with Brazil under cover of what they can claim to be an open, multi-stakeholder dialogue.
Now none of this is to say that ICANN would not have been entitled to be the join partner of Brazil in holding the meeting. Why not - indeed, who better? But then it should have been up-front about that, rather than maintaining the fallacy that the real partner of the meeting was actually 1net, a new multi-stakeholder dialogue that didn't even exist or have the capacity to make decisions for itself when these deals were being struck.
> > This statement is really misleading and surely needs to be removed unless or until there is agreement on it within the constituencies of the 1net steering committee representatives.
> Are you deliberately trying to be obstructionist or does it just appear that way? Your position lacks coherence and relevance. We cannot tell whether you are against having the Brazil meeting at all; whether you want to senselessly detach 1net from the meeting but support having it, if so, who liaises between the meeting organizers and the rest of us; what you think 1net is for, and what it should be doing.
I'm not against the Brazil meeting, and it's the meeting committees that are to liaise between the organisers and their constituents. I think it would be a great idea for 1net to decide for itself what it should be doing, rather than be told that it's a co-organiser of the Brazil meeting regardless of the wishes of its participants or the historical facts.
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights
@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the discuss