This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to firstname.lastname@example.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.
[I-coordination] What is 1net to me?
fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Sun Dec 1 19:30:14 CET 2013
Hi Paul and others,
Though I've been trying to catch up on the Montevideo statement and associated discussions that have been happening all over the CS and technical community mailing lists and now this one too, as being bed ridden after a bad accident......
As i try to go through the two months of 1net i-coordination mailing list archive as well as reading your article on CircleID, I am confused why this sudden need of an intercessional IGF activity between and within the Internet Ecosystem few has suddenly evolved. I felt an attempt in the article to clarify and reason with the technical community's and ICANN/Fadi's promotion of the issue and building a coalition which sorry to say already exists within the Internet Ecosystem or Internet Community between ICANN and RIRs and now is being brought forward to create more limelight and prove amidst the IGF and ICANN communities that what exists is really not enough and there should be more.
Enhanced Cooperation activities are still struggling to find rationality and purpose for existence (despite being embodied within the Tunis Agenda) and somehow in search of a lifeline within the IGF. That is also why there is this dilemma of intermingled use of multilateralism and multistakeholderism because neither are mature in the sense of governance mechanisms.
The Brazil meeting adds more to the troubles of developing country Stakeholders like us that already lack the resources to be at the global IGF or regional IGFs due to lack of financial resources and now this, a perfect opportunity to keep us out by adding more and more to the preexisting Internet and Internet Governance ecosystem or now this playground.
The technical community in this case is clearly playing lead in this new attempt to build reasoning for a new form and setting for Internet governance and enhanced cooperation beyond the IGF. Frankly speaking, this is just one country's attempt or reminds me of the BRIC attempts from the past to rationalize that we also exist and we can also intervene and it's an equal playground. If that is the case then let's encourage China to call in their global IG meeting, Russia to call in theirs and then so on, let's have all of them be intercessional IGF activities for that matter.
This appears like the usual faces with their usual multiple hats putting on new hats. If we look at the steering committee of the 1net, sorry to say, I see the same ol same ol faces with their new hats and nice flowery ones too. What I am really disappointed with and again is that Fadi Chehade losing the point within the earlier trust he was so successfully building in his role in ICANN and the Internet community.
It reminds me of how the previous CEO of ICANN also lost track and lost the whole point of Internet Governance in the context of where ICANN plays its important role within the IG ecosystem. One Malaysian stakeholder took a punch at ICANN during IGF'09 in Sharam and then the rest unfolded on its own in the next few years. These things fall out hand despite us closing our eyes and ignoring it.
This continuous misuse of the Civil Society context within some new agenda being produced by a handful few is a very weak attempt to stitch together this new multistakeholderism approach that is led by the technical community and a government or a few governments leaving out the whole community that is actually part of the IGF and the ICANN.
Once again, ICANNs own rationality will soon come into question and the very technical community that is attempting this new form of organization will itself become challenged. It's okay if this is a new club or conference for the heck of it but in the ideology of intergovernmental and multilateral treaties and a much more broader stakeholder context, it's a shot in the air. I can see the ITU and CSTD to also find some intercessional IGF rationality soon. I think we should have the WSIS forum be intercessional IGF as well since we are all in for it, or aren't we?
Sent from my mobile device
More information about the I-coordination