This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org.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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Dec 3 14:35:20 CET 2013


On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>wrote:

> 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"
>
> +1 i looked at 1net site and its making me wonder why more information is
yet to be published on the site. Its looking like the team don't want to be
too loud enough so as not to create a sense of disconnect from the existing
IGF platforms and at the same time the 1Net team wants to be as loud enough
to get their voice heard. IMHO more efforts needs to be put in the latter
and perhaps the existing platform will see how more inclusive the 1Net
structure is to warrant their teaming up.


> 2.  Surely it has (or could have) a life beyond Brazil; there are other
> important discussions ahead; not least PP-14;
>

I had once thought that Brazil was the reason for this list, however that
notion has been clarified and i can say perhaps all the events happening
concurrently may have caused the assumptions. Brazil is a one time event
and the life of this list (movement) should not be such unless my initial
thinking was still valid.

3.  Important that we coordinate input to Brazil through 1Net and not as
> independent entities;
>
> +1 on this, I am looking forward to structured issues that can be put up
on this list with an effective way to appropriately harvest the
contributions. In entire sense, ways to really ensure that contributions
here really make a difference in decision making towards the "governance"
of the Internet is a desire.

Kind Regards


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131203/797dbf4d/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the I-coordination mailing list