This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to email@example.com.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] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees
kdrstoll at gmail.com
Thu Dec 5 16:22:22 CET 2013
Greetings and Thank You very much for your email. I completely respect
your point, even if I do not share them. My simple point or question is:
Should we move together or not. In this case I think we all need to
stand together and suffer the pains to get ourselves organized and to
include those who are usually not included.
We also have to deal with the civil society "businesses" which I
mentioned in my email before and which seemed to rear their ugly head in
this list several times.
Enough said, I think its time for others to speak now and to move on to
more constructive issues.
On 12/5/2013 4:00 PM, parminder wrote:
> Dear Klaus
> My apologies but I may not have fully understood all of your concerns
> here.... If my response does not address them well please do let me
> know here, or offlist.
> The groups that wrote for direct liaison from civil society side to
> the Brazilian organisers, (1) did not mean that they alone should be
> considered as reps of civil society (no civil society group can ever
> make that claim) and (2) did not foreclose other groups from engaging
> directly with the organisers or for that matter engage under some
> larger umbrella like 1Net.
> Civil society is that part of the society which definitionally stands
> out of and away from highly organised groups, whether political
> (governments, political parties) or economic (corporations etc). The
> premise is that 'any' highly organised group sooner or latter begins
> to work for internal/ vested interests if not checked from outside,
> and thus under-performs or mis-performs its required social functions.
> Civil society is supposed to provide that check. The extent of checks
> needed in different contexts and at different times may vary - from
> being just correctional to outright transformational (revolutions, for
> instance). The paradox however is that to effectively provide such
> checks civil society itself has to undergo certain level of
> organisation.... But then if it becomes highly organised we would be
> back to the first part of this argument about highly organised group
> becoming self serving - and contradict the definition of civil society.
> For this reason, civil society can never become too highly organised,
> and also retain its essence, that of the 'outsider'. (Even within
> authoritative committees etc it has to hold the perspective of the
> 'outsider'.)... It has to always hang between a minimal required
> organisation and the un- organised masses which it really is supposed
> to be representing. Such a ever-lasting, constitutional, tension keeps
> civil society in a state of constant self-examination ....
> Well, your email and my response is a part of this continuing self
> examination, and we are civil society only till we continually do it :)
> Anyway, you got your answer - I think other civil society group can
> and should also directly approach Brazilian organisers, or take hep of
> some platforms if they are avaiable. It is entirely their choice. And
> if the organisers get frustrated with this and tell us - why dont you
> organise yourself and come to us as one front, we can give them the
> above long philosophical answer :). Sir, we are civil society, we do
> our best, but a certain amount of dis-organisation is constitutional
> to us..
> best regards
> On Thursday 05 December 2013 06:18 PM, Klaus Stoll wrote:
>> Dear Parminder
>> Greetings. Does this mean that members of those civil society groups
>> that have written to the Brazilian organizers and which to have
>> direct representation should not be available for nomination to the
>> Brazil preparation committees? I think that would be consequent.
>> The question also stands in the room if it is constructive that some
>> civil society groups seem to pick and choose whats best for them
>> instead of standing in solidarity with the rest something that is far
>> from perfect. I do not call this a respectful position of these civil
>> society groups, it seems to be more an exercise in throwing their
>> weight around. Maybe it would also be consequent for these civil
>> society groups to withdraw their members from all nominations.
>> Are we in this together or only when it suits us?
>> Is this about organizational interests or about the common good?
>>> Hi Adiel
>>> If I get it right, I read below as asking civil society to send
>>> names of 4 people to you - as coordinator of 1net - for 2
>>> preparation committees of the 'Brazil meeting'. Is it so?
>>> I am not sure, but perhaps you know that civil society groups have
>>> written to the Brazilian organisers that they will like to have a
>>> direct engagment with them and not through any common front, or any
>>> such thing (including 1net.)
>>> In the circumstances, I wonder why the below announcement... I dare
>>> say that it appears to be disrespectful of civil soicety's stand
>>> that was taken together by a number of civil society groups.
>>> On Thursday 05 December 2013 03:31 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> In order to bring some clarity in to this let me remind us that each stakeholder group (Business (done), Civil Society, Technical community, Academia) is requested to appoint/nominate a total of 9 people:
>>>> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation committee-1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee
>>>> *** This is the committee that will set the high-level
>>>> political tone and objectives of the conference.
>>>> Committee members will engage on a global level with
>>>> stakeholders to encourage participation in the
>>>> conference and maximize its chances of success
>>>> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation Committee 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee
>>>> **** This committee owns the full responsibility of
>>>> organizing the event, including: defining conference
>>>> purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing
>>>> input received by March 1 into a coherent set of
>>>> proposals for the conferees to address, managing
>>>> conference proceedings and process, and directing all
>>>> communications activities pre-during-post conference.
>>>> - 5 people to constitute the /1Net Steering committee
>>>> Let me suggest December 15 as deadline to have the nominations from all the groups. Once you have your list, please forward it to me directly or share with the mailing lists. Please allow me to request that we, on this list respect what each group will come up with. It is for each interested group to organise themselves to select their reps and we must respect that.
>>>> - a.
>>>> I-coordination mailing list
>>>> I-coordination at nro.net
>>> I-coordination mailing list
>>> I-coordination at nro.net
>> I-coordination mailing list
>> I-coordination at nro.net
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the I-coordination