This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org.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

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Tue Dec 3 12:57:59 CET 2013


Colleagues 

Good morning; will be brief.  Think Milton, Klaus and Fouad raise really
key points:

1.  The importance of 1NET is that it crosses boundaries; we all have a
common (though sometimes nuanced) objective in terms of preserving the
current multi-stakholder (however defined) approach to governance; thus
important that this does not become another "list"

2.  Surely it has (or could have) a life beyond Brazil; there are other
important discussions ahead; not least PP-14;
3.  Important that we coordinate input to Brazil through 1Net and not as
independent entities;

Best

Nigel   

On 12/2/13 9:45 PM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

>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 don¹t think the problem is that those things are confusing or people
>>have
>> different definition for them. I¹m not sure that there are several
>>kinds of
>> multi-stakeholderism; it¹s 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 don¹t 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>I-coordination mailing list
>I-coordination at nro.net
>https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131203/6a7ba54c/smime.p7s 


More information about the I-coordination mailing list