This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org.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] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Dec 6 21:40:07 CET 2013


On Dec 7, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder how and when did Fadi receive a mandate to move out beyond
> ICANN and step into the political economy space of Internet Governance
> and multilateral activities which led to interventions with a
> government that was actually also a signatory of the WCIT outcome
> document? Does this also assert that ICANN is trying to move beyond
> its mandate into an ITU attempted take over of the Internet Governance
> space that was attempted at the WCIT?

If you wish to know about ICANN's "mandate" or plans in this area,
have you considered asking Fadi?  

> If 1Net is a completely different and separate space from the
> Montevideo assertion then I would like to learn how did this gap
> evolve in the first place where the need for such a coalition was
> felt?

1net is not a completely different and separate space from the
Montevideo Statement.  1net trying to further those goals, and 
its formation was discussed in Montevideo and further discussed
at several sessions at the Bali IGF. The Brazil meeting was not 
discussed at the Montevideo meeting, nor was it part of the 
statement released afterward.   

> My interest comes from the fact that about 90% of the people
> involved in this group's mailing list in the first month of its
> creation are all either IGF MAG members or ICANN community
> members....and if they have felt that the IGF or ICANN settings and
> meetings are insufficient to address their prevailing concerns, why
> haven't they resigned and left the IGF MAG or ICANN AC/OC's and taken
> on this quote n quote "movement"?

As I see it, 1net does not need to displace or preempt any existing
activities in the Internet governance space, and in fact, could be 
a useful supplement to existing IGF activities.  Many of us are very
strong supporters of IGF and don't see that changing - can you explain
why you view this as an "either/or" proposition?

Thanks!
/John




More information about the I-coordination mailing list