This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org.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?

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Mon Dec 2 12:29:59 CET 2013


Hi Marilia, and thanks for the considered questions, which I hope are not for me alone to answer!

I truly believe that 1net can be anything we want it to be; in relation to IGF, WSIS+10, ICANN and other processes.  If it is to usefully support the IGF process, and provide some inter-sessional continuity (as I have suggested), there must surely be plenty of interaction/intersection with the MAG.    

If the Brazil meeting leads to any useful outcomes at all related to Internet Governance (which I'm sure it will!) then surely this must be useful to the IGF.  Such outputs may be useful to other processes as well, of course.

Certainly I think that additional support and commitment to the IGF would be a great outcome, of both 1net and the Brazil meeting.

Paul.


On 02/12/2013, at 5:56 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Paul and all,
> 
>  
> Thank you very much for this enlightening text. I particularly liked the fact that you propose a role for 1net that goes beyond the meeting in Brazil. I find this proposal interesting, but I would like to ask you some questions. Sorry if any of these topics have been discussed before, I am still catching up with previous messages to this list. 
> 
>  
> - Do you believe 1net could also play a role in a WSIS +10 review? If so, what kind of role would that be? What are the concerns that we should have today to create a platform that is also useful for the broader WSIS review context?
> 
>  
> - How would 1net relate to the MAG and to its discussions? If we want to strengthen the IGF, strengthening the MAG is very important. How can 1net carry out inter-sessional discussions without displacing the MAG? Do you envision a “division of labor”, so both can live together harmoniously and strengthen one another? If so, could you elaborate a bit on that?
> 
>  
> - From what I understand, you believe that strengthening the IGF would be an acceptable or a “good enough” result for the meeting in Brazil. Certainly, there are some of us that want to see the IGF strengthened, but would also like to see concrete steps, or least a roadmap, when it comes to principles and institutional arrangements. Do you (and others) in the list think that 1net would be ready to work on proposals about that? These topics have constantly been in the speeches of Brazilian hosts and of many other non-gov actors. I think if the platform wants to be constructive and make sure multistakeholder participation is reinforced after Brazil, it should arrive in Brazil with ideas about these issues as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget as well that we have a very detailed multistakeholder report on IGF improvements, produced by the CSTD WG. Most of the concrete things we need to do in order to strengthen the IGF are there. What we need is to put those recommendations in place (so the IGF would become an even more meaningful space for the community) and to have political commitment with the Forum. If the issue of strengthening the IGF hinders other necessary discussions, it could be a political shoot in the foot.  
> 
>  
> Thanks and congratulations for the text.
> 
>  
> Marília
> 
> -- 
> Marília Maciel
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> 
> DiploFoundation associate
> www.diplomacy.edu
> 
> 
> 




More information about the I-coordination mailing list