This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com.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?
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Dec 2 21:55:00 CET 2013
I appreciate that there is some frustration with the status quo and that
there are issues that permeate governance that go beyond the concepts
that have been set forth to discuss in the working groups. I also
appreciate the concept of not being limited by artificial constraints
that were not the result of a true multi-stakeholder consultation and
agreement. As you know I have already highlighted the need for process
to make us truly multi-stakeholder and I believe all of the
constituencies are in the process of nominating experts to participate
in the process. My view is that those experts will be participating in
a representative capacity to help drive issue discussions and proposed
work, but will need to consult back with the broader community they
represent before approving anything going forward as consensus
position. As we consider the possible processes we can put in place to
enable this work to progress I am mindful that we cannot boil the ocean
of all issues. While we should not be overly constrained in the work we
choose to undertake, we must be realistic that some topics will require
work in the near and mid term. So perhaps one of the early process
questions we ask is how to manage and prioritize topics and work?
Nothing in that level of goal orientation for the working groups should
preclude a broader discussion of issues on the list, but perhaps we can
distinguish between things we should discuss and things we need to
discuss within specific groups based on upcoming events...
On 12/2/2013 3:21 PM, Klaus Stoll wrote:
> 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)
> 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
>> 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
>> 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?
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination