This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit

[I-coordination] What is 1net to me?

Anja Kovacs anja at
Mon Dec 2 13:14:52 CET 2013

+1 to the comments and proposals made by Klaus - my sense of where the
value of 1net could lie is along very similar lines.

And happy to join a team of volunteers to get this going, if others agree
as well that this is indeed a desirable direction for 1net to take.


On 2 December 2013 15:02, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at> wrote:

>  Dear Paul, Dear All
> Thanks Paul for starting this discussion threat and all those who replied.
> Paul's article received such a response simply by it's virtue that it tried
> to get some order into the chaos, Thanks again Paul, and as my first
> comment I would like to say that we need some clarity about 1net.
> If I read all the emails it seems to be a top down, (I *group), effort,
> with the *potential* to create a "bottom up" "movement". Basicaly we are
> told, as Fadi did during the famous 7.00 am Wednesday meeting, and I use my
> own words here "this is it, run with it".
> Then there is the mysterious steering committee which seems to have the
> huge potential to add substantially to the "Internet's ironic need to
> travel!",. (Thanks Avri, I will never forget this one). My suggestion is to
> give this 800 pound gorilla in the room his freedom and forget it. Like
> many Gorillas, it will seldom fly! (and if it flies, it has to answer the
> question if it has the right and legitimacy to do so).
> Looks like another fine mess we are in. Here some thoughts that might get
> some constructive outcomes going.
> Can we stop calling it a "movement", ya basta!. Movements happen, they are
> not created or enabled top down by a group how ever good meaning.
> Most of the discussion seems to be about the role and position of existing
> Internet Governance groups and organizations. I think this is short sighted
> because we try to fix a car with the parts that are already broken. What we
> need is a process of: a) reevaluation, b) recreation, and c) assembly.
> Maybe it would be a good idea to forget Brazil meetings, steering
> committee and so on. We are going into these discussions with the same old
> structures, interests and instruments to got us stuck in the first place.
> We need new answers and maybe it is better to simply start using this list
> to start discussing fundamental questions like: "What kind of multi
> stakeholderism do we need today and how will it create itself?", How can
> the obsolete understanding of sovereignty by Nation States be reformed and
> changes so that it actually fits into a digital world?", What does
> multi-lateral, multi-stakeholder, cyber security and so on actually means
> in our reality today?. If we answer these questions, and many other better
> ones, we have a chance to rebuild. May I dare to suggest that we set up a
> set of working group discussion groups, (maybe loosely following the ICANN
> working group principles),  that come up with some answers. We can then
> start recreate worn out tools as the WSIS and IGF besides others in order
> to end up we a re-assembled IG structure that might serve us for a few
> years more until next time the mess becomes to large to feel comfortable.
> I hear some of you say, " but we have enough trouble filling existing
> working groups!". Yes you are right. The reason is that IG is suffering
> from something that I would like to call "sectoral blindness". Do you
> really think that this group and the I* and the whole ICANN IG based
> ecosystem even begins to start to represent also those who are affected,
> evolved and engaged. There are many outside that you do not see and that
> feel the pain just as much as we, if not more, as the usually feel more
> powerless and frustrated . Just look at the group that is dear to my heart
> the I-Engage institute, , there are dozens of groups like
> this around, and in order to make it work we need to find an instrument to
> make a joint discussion and knowledge exchange happen. It can be done,
> there just needs to be concious efford to look over our fences.
> So again, my simple straight forward proposal is:
> 1). Let's think about the questions we need answers. (Forget existing
> power structures for the moment)
> 2). Let's come up, if necessary contradictory, answers in structured,
> topic and time limited working groups, that include those beyond the "usual
> candidates"
> 3.) Working groups should not just look at the answers but also how they
> can be implemented.
> 4.) Joint implementation and evaluation.
> That is it very, very roughly. If you think it makes sense, if you think
> its rubbish, if you think it needs tweaking, let's hear it.
> Who dares to formulate some draft questions and put them out here to try?
> I end with putting my time where my mouth/keyboard is by volunteering
> myself to make something along these lines happen. Who is with me?
> Yours
> Klaus
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at

Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the I-coordination mailing list