This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org.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] I-coordination Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7

Nathalie Coupet nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 2 13:46:35 CET 2013


Hi Klaus,

I am with you 100%. 

Nathalie

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 2, 2013, at 4:46 AM, i-coordination-request at nro.net wrote:

> Send I-coordination mailing list submissions to
>    i-coordination at nro.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    i-coordination-request at nro.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    i-coordination-owner at nro.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of I-coordination digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: What is 1net to me? (Klaus Stoll)
>   2. Re: What is 1net to me? (Stephane Van Gelder Consulting)
>   3. the need for a "1net-neutrality charter" [was Brazil meeting
>      -- press release] (JFC Morfin)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:32:29 +0100
> From: Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] What is 1net to me?
> To: i-coordination at nro.net
> Message-ID: <529C53AD.3060005 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 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, www.i-engage.me , 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131202/57a3d480/attachment-0001.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:43:38 +0100
> From: Stephane Van Gelder Consulting <svg at stephanevangelder.com>
> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] What is 1net to me?
> To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> Cc: "I-coordination at nro.net" <i-coordination at nro.net>
> Message-ID:
>    <CABs8SxN+_LdaKf3e7bfMHdp3uNQHaEjEFGA6MrkiBy_cWyzp0A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> The issue may not so much be whether 1net and the other events that
> preceded it were truly bottom-up, but more whether these are initiatives
> that the various Internet communities can rally behind.
> 
> It seems to me that the goal of keeping Internet Governance (IG) truly
> multi stakeholder (MS) is one most (I would hope all, but you never know)
> can rally behind.
> 
> So the question then becomes more how to safeguard this ideal, if it truly
> is under attack.
> 
> Right now, from a PR point of view, I do not think 1net is a clear
> initiative at all. As other have already remarked in this email chain,
> Paul's article reinforces that view (the vagueness as to what 1net is for
> at the end of the article is evident).
> 
> But conversely to others, I do not see this lack of current clarity as a
> problem, but rather an opportunity. I see 1net as a (currently) empty
> canvas, one that has been put in front of the Internet community as a whole
> to shape as it will.
> 
> This is why I was keen to join this mailing list and participate in the
> debate. If, through discussions, it transpires that 1net is actually one
> vehicle too many and can never get clarity, then I hope at that point we
> will all have the courage to pull its plug.
> 
> But there is also the possibility that 1net, by fostering discussions
> within our community and allowing ideas to coalesce under the "defend MS IG
> model" banner, may actually be of use...
> 
> Best,
> 
> St?phane Van Gelder
> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
> STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
> 
> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
> Skype: SVANGELDER
> www.StephaneVanGelder.com
> ----------------
> Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook:
> www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
> 
> 
> On 1 December 2013 18:39, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 1, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Paul, good article.
>>> 
>>> BTW, it is interesting to observe that leaders or CEO's, including the
>> rogue (and after the fact damage control made by the Bod) move by ICANN's
>> CEO, does not exactly represent bottom-up actions.
>>> 
>> 
>>> Not a single iota of consultation with the real bottom was made in
>> relation to the events mentioned in your article.
>> 
>> 
>> Jorge -
>> 
>> We're trying to catalyze an activity via the formation of "1net" (with an
>> open call for participation
>> including formation of the steering committee.)  As folks probably realize
>> from the initial awkward
>> steps, it actually would have been _much_ easier to have a I*-specified
>> 1net leadership and an
>> I*-provided list of specific goals, etc.
>> 
>> I acknowledge there is an inherent conflict between a set of leaders
>> meeting and then calling for
>> an initiative to be formed versus waiting for it to form organically, but
>> having now called for its
>> formation and allowing folks to participate (or not), to shaping its
>> direction (or not), to seat folks
>> on the steering committee (or not); the only way "1net" will not be the
>> result of bottom-up actions
>> is from lack of  participation rather than lack of opportunity.   One
>> would hope that folks who have
>> contact with "the real bottom" will work to make that community aware of
>> the initiative and enable
>> their participation.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>> 
>> Disclaimers:  My views alone.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-coordination mailing list
>> I-coordination at nro.net
>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
>> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131202/48e4c0c7/attachment-0001.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:46:36 +0100
> From: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
> Subject: [I-coordination] the need for a "1net-neutrality charter"
>    [was Brazil meeting -- press release]
> To: "I-coordination at nro.net" <i-coordination at nro.net>
> Message-ID: <mailman.2467.1385977604.12103.i-coordination at nro.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131202/bc65c374/attachment.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
> 
> 
> End of I-coordination Digest, Vol 3, Issue 7
> ********************************************



More information about the I-coordination mailing list