This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com. 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?
tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
Mon Dec 2 20:53:14 CET 2013
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?.
I dont think the problem is that those things are confusing or people have
different definition for them. Im not sure that there are several kinds of
multi-stakeholderism; its always the same even if the stakeholders may be
different from a environment to another (in the IGF they are governments,
civil society, private sector and international organizations while in
ICANN, they are contracted parties, governments, non commercial stakeholder
group, end users, ccTLD operators, etc.). I dont believe that there are 2
persons who understand Multilateralism differently.
All this started by the Montevideo statement that I fully support, and that
came subsequently to the recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and
surveillance. It expressed the clear need to continually strengthen and
evolve the mechanisms for global multi-stakeholder Internet cooperation, in
truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging issues faced by
stakeholders in the Internet. Paul explained very well the sequence of the
events and the origin of this (I will not call it movement) initiative and I
do agree with those who highlighted that 1net is not the Brazil meeting next
year, and it is not conditioned by it at all.
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax: + 216 70 853 376
De : i-coordination-bounces at nro.net [mailto:i-coordination-bounces at nro.net]
De la part de Klaus Stoll
Envoyé : lundi 2 décembre 2013 10:32
À : i-coordination at nro.net
Objet : Re: [I-coordination] What is 1net to me?
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
3.) Working groups should not just look at the answers but also how they can
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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination