This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org.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

Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Mon Dec 2 22:45:52 CET 2013


Okay going through all the archive of messages, there is no formal
call for a steering group and +1 to what Milton has also shared. I
believe the business related people would be the first to put their
names forward because in the initial messages to this list, their
names are prominent.

I believe that this group should be constituted beyond the usual
lobbying and all game play. Maybe for once, a group can emerge with a
multistakeholder approach that can move forward together and as one.
Atleast for a moment this group should pause and think that is it
constituted just for the Brazil meeting or something beyond that
because so far there is no consensus appearing in the messages on such
an approach. If it wants to move beyond the Brazil meeting then don't
we have regional IGFs and all sorts of Internet communities around
ICANN, RIRs/NICs/NROs, W3C, ISOC Chapters, IETF and so on? What is it
that this group actually expects to achieve? Just another show in the
series of IG related settings without any rationality and recognition?

Why would government's come to this group when they have their necks
in the UNGA, the IGF and ICANN GAC? These questions are still
unanswered against some brilliant wishes of creating another
realization of multikstakeholderism where the Brazil government
statements usually lead towards more multilateral
(government/intergovernmental governance). There is no political
standing or recognition of this group and I don't see how its going to
secure that very legitimacy in both the long or short-term.

The enthusiasm is appreciated, I only got to know about this group and
list within these one or two weeks and its been somehow running before
the ICANN BA meeting so there is something in top gear but really
nothing substantial with some hopes and wishes.

The fundamentals are required to be explored. I am all game and I see
alot of others in the game but think about the rationality and
legitimacy of something which has no recognition beyond existing
people that are already in IGF MAG and ICANN ac/oc's or the Internet
Community already deeply involved in existing IG related international
settings??? and as I mentioned earlier, how does this group not repeat
previous attempts?

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:55 AM, joseph alhadeff
<joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> Colleagues:
>
> 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...
>
> Best-
>
> Joe
> 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)
>
> 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 , 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 nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa



More information about the I-coordination mailing list