This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org.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

Klaus Stoll kdrstoll at gmail.com
Mon Dec 2 21:21:47 CET 2013


Dear Tijani Benjemaa

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry but I think you have missed my 
point. I did not ask for new definitions, I asked for structures 
discussion, answers and implementation of solutions to burning questions 
in IG today. If you have these answers clearly, please lets hear them. 
If these answers are not clear to everyone, all I did was to propose a 
process that is designed to fully support "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". My proposal is 
an attempt to try to add substance to your fine declaration, as even the 
finest declarations need to be followed by action in order to lift them 
off the pages and to give them real impact.  Do you think a structured 
process of discussion, answers and implementation would be helpful to 
give the Montevideo statement life?. If no, please explain. If yes, 
please help us to make it happen.

With regard to Multilateralism, just ask 3 UN Delegates and you will get 
7 definitions and understandings. (I wish it was so easy. BTW, even my 
spellchecker has problems to decide how to spell it)

Yours

Klaus

Executive Director
Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation

On 12/2/2013 8:53 PM, Tijani BENJEMAA wrote:
>
> Dear Klaus,
>
> 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 don't think the problem is that those things are confusing or people 
> have different definition for them. I'm not sure that there are 
> several kinds of multi-stakeholderism; it's 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 don't 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*
>
> Executive Director
>
> 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 <http://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/c0e5bfd3/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the I-coordination mailing list