This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com.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?
mariliamaciel at gmail.com
Tue Dec 3 19:37:50 CET 2013
Thanks, Paul. I actually shared my doubts and concerns with the whole list
:) Thank you for sharing your views.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> Hi Marilia, and thanks for the considered questions, which I hope are not
> for me alone to answer!
> I truly believe that 1net can be anything we want it to be; in relation to
> IGF, WSIS+10, ICANN and other processes. If it is to usefully support the
> IGF process, and provide some inter-sessional continuity (as I have
> suggested), there must surely be plenty of interaction/intersection with
> the MAG.
> If the Brazil meeting leads to any useful outcomes at all related to
> Internet Governance (which I'm sure it will!) then surely this must be
> useful to the IGF. Such outputs may be useful to other processes as well,
> of course.
> Certainly I think that additional support and commitment to the IGF would
> be a great outcome, of both 1net and the Brazil meeting.
> On 02/12/2013, at 5:56 AM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Paul and all,
> > Thank you very much for this enlightening text. I particularly liked the
> fact that you propose a role for 1net that goes beyond the meeting in
> Brazil. I find this proposal interesting, but I would like to ask you some
> questions. Sorry if any of these topics have been discussed before, I am
> still catching up with previous messages to this list.
> > - Do you believe 1net could also play a role in a WSIS +10 review? If
> so, what kind of role would that be? What are the concerns that we should
> have today to create a platform that is also useful for the broader WSIS
> review context?
> > - How would 1net relate to the MAG and to its discussions? If we want to
> strengthen the IGF, strengthening the MAG is very important. How can 1net
> carry out inter-sessional discussions without displacing the MAG? Do you
> envision a “division of labor”, so both can live together harmoniously and
> strengthen one another? If so, could you elaborate a bit on that?
> > - From what I understand, you believe that strengthening the IGF would
> be an acceptable or a “good enough” result for the meeting in Brazil.
> Certainly, there are some of us that want to see the IGF strengthened, but
> would also like to see concrete steps, or least a roadmap, when it comes to
> principles and institutional arrangements. Do you (and others) in the list
> think that 1net would be ready to work on proposals about that? These
> topics have constantly been in the speeches of Brazilian hosts and of many
> other non-gov actors. I think if the platform wants to be constructive and
> make sure multistakeholder participation is reinforced after Brazil, it
> should arrive in Brazil with ideas about these issues as well.
> > Let's not forget as well that we have a very detailed multistakeholder
> report on IGF improvements, produced by the CSTD WG. Most of the concrete
> things we need to do in order to strengthen the IGF are there. What we need
> is to put those recommendations in place (so the IGF would become an even
> more meaningful space for the community) and to have political commitment
> with the Forum. If the issue of strengthening the IGF hinders other
> necessary discussions, it could be a political shoot in the foot.
> > Thanks and congratulations for the text.
> > Marília
> > --
> > Marília Maciel
> > Pesquisadora Gestora
> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> > Researcher and Coordinator
> > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
> > DiploFoundation associate
> > www.diplomacy.edu
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination