[discuss] [/1net Forums] Forum Activity for 03-04-2014
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Tue Mar 4 21:07:33 UTC 2014
Many of my posts have focused on the need for process. They have
likewise focused on the need for both consultation and participation
within and across stakeholder groups. The 1-Net list has become to many
a vehicle for discussing issues with little limit as to detail, scope or
appropriate forum/time frame for resolution. That is as it should be
since 1-Net was not meant to only focus on Brazil. A number of
important issues have been raised in this and subsequent threads about
the proposed survey. While I understand that some may see survey-monkey
as a process solution, I don't see how it will allow us to achieve
consensus, especially as we have not all be consulted in developing the
questions. 1-Net has allowed various points of view to emerge, be
challenged and revised, but it would be hard to say that there is a
process for adoption, especially when a number of commentators are not
engaged in some of the most detailed conversations . It remains unclear
where and how that work product would or should be be used beyond that
of inputs of ideas for information or reference. We have not identified
any real process to define what issues we are tackling in any truly
representative consensus manner for what venue or at what level of
appropriate detail, nor has there even been a clear articulation that
such is the mission of 1-Net. It would seem that Brazil in the Net
Mundial process had developed various committees for input development
and review to address those very issues... The survey may be an
interesting tool to gather some points of view related to certain
questions, but I do not see how it can be proposed as a statement of
1-Net consensus across stakeholders.
On 3/4/2014 11:40 AM, George Sadowsky wrote:
> This is a complete surprise.
> First, unless I have amnesia or been asleep during the past week, this
> is NOT a summary of discussions in this Forum.
> Second, please point to evidence of a common feeling that 1net should
> provide formal input to NetMundial, or to any of the foundation
> documents for this list that suggest such an outcome.
> Third, who are the "we " referred to in the text below. This is an
> anonymous document claiming a distinct turn in the conduct of this
> form which I claim does not exist. Who are you?
> Fourth, it encourages convergence on a statement across all
> participants, from multiple sectors, within the next 4 days. This is
> an impossible task, even if it were the right thing to do. (We've
> been trying to do this for years.) It will be a motherhood document,
> a 'lower that the lowest possible common denominator' document. It
> will prove that 1net exists, but not a lot more.
> Fifth, I thought that the purpose of this list was NOT to reach any
> kind of forced agreement in a short time frame. I thought that: (1)
> is was meant to discuss Internet governance issues, and if possible
> (2) inform NetMundial with a range of opinions and possible assistance.
> Sixth, a stated goal seems to be what to "put forward to the
> NetMundial meeting as representative of /1net's view." I didn't know
> that 1net had to have a point of view. We have had discussions, some
> fruitful, some in the realm of science fiction, and there have been
> some discussions that have provided decent and interesting material
> for 1net.
> Seventh, whoever is proposing this is suggesting that a survey,
> announced by e-mail 16 hours before its close (!!) to the '1net
> community," a list of 600-1000 members, maybe 40-50 of who have
> actually participated in this list, is going to provide any useful
> information whatsoever? Even if this were a worthwhile captivity,
> which it is not, such a process could not be expected to yield any
> meaningful result.
> Eighth, the expectation that "the statement should be viewed as the
> broad perspective on Internet governance issues from the /1net
> community," is unrealistic. Rather it is high likely to be a
> significant misrepresentation of what the opinions of the community
> are, given the faulty process and the tight time frame of the
> proposal. Those who are rabid in their opinions will participate.
> In summary:
> - this is a bad idea
> - it states that the "community enjoyed" a discussion that I believe
> never really happened
> - it is based on a feeling that we should provide formal input that
> AFAIK was not felt
> - it specifies a tight deadline for a previously unannounced objective
> - it significantly distorts the stated purpose of the 1net list
> - it will yield results of little value; the sample frame will consist
> of those who (1) read their e-mail promptly (2) have the time to
> respond (3)
> - it has been imposed from an anonymous "above"
> Perhaps the anonymous "we" can respond to the above points.
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 1:32 AM, /1net Forums digest <info at 1net.org
> <mailto:info at 1net.org>> wrote:
>> Here's a brief summary of the discussion on /1net Forums
>> since we last saw you on 02-28-2014.
>> Recent posts the community enjoyed:
>> Help to create a /1net statement for NetMundial
>> Based on the feeling and importance that /1net should provide some
>> kind of formal input to the NetMundial meeting in April, we have
>> specifically developed a statement and process to meet the tight
>> deadline for submitting input (Saturday 8 March).
>> The statement is built from the Montevideo Statement, and split up
>> into the two themes of the NetMundial meeting. There shouldn't be
>> anything in this statement that is controversial or surprising if you
>> have been following Internet governance discussions over the past
>> four months.
>> A few quick things to note:
>> * Having a /1net statement should not in any way preclude people
>> from sending their own input to the NetMundial meeting
>> * The statement should be viewed as the broad perspective on
>> Internet governance issues from the /1net community. There is
>> plenty of opportunity for more in-depth discussions outside this
>> singular event
>> * Given the tight deadline, we should as much as possible avoid
>> suggestions that others will disagree with
>> Process of converging on the content of the statement:
>> * An online survey gives everyone the opportunity to review each
>> sentence within the draft statement. You can simply agree with it
>> (obviously the preferred response), you can "Agree but..." and
>> provide some brief feedback, or you can disagree and explain why
>> you feel would need to change to the wording in order for you to
>> * That survey will run from now until the end of Tuesday (23:45 UTC),
>> at which point it will close.
>> * The results from the survey will be analyzed to see what changes
>> could be made to accommodate different views - and statistics
>> released to show what the feedback was (comments will be published
>> but not attributed).
>> * On Thursday, a reformed statement will be put to a second survey sent
>> to Steering Committee members who will act as representatives of
>> their stakeholder groups in deciding yes or no to specific
>> * That survey will close Friday and /1net coordinator Adiel Akplogan
>> will review the results and decide what can be put forward to the
>> NetMundial meeting as representative of /1net's view.
>> It is far more rushed than is ideal but given the fact that there is
>> only this week to reach agreement, hopefully you will all see the
>> value in responding quickly and constructively.
>> You can find the survey and the statements at:
>> Please note that the survey will automatically close at 23.45 UTC on
>> Tuesday 4 March.
>> Thank you for your input in advance.
>> This summary email is sent as a courtesy notification from /1net
>> when we haven't seen you in a while. To unsubscribe click here
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss