This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit

[I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees

Filiz Yilmaz koalafil at
Sat Dec 7 13:07:00 CET 2013


Tags always had been confusing for me but I guess I could consider myself as part of the Technical community or Civil Society but I do not feel the need to do that for my participation here in this platform. I do not work for an I* organisation currently and I am not directly affiliated with an organisation defining itself as part of the Civil Society, other than I try to do my own share of volunteering here and there, like many others do. 

In other words, I am a concerned Internet citizen (without a tag) and this is the reason I am here, as an individual. 
I believe there are many others who are here for similar reasons.   

It looks to me the merit/mandate of this fora is questioned whenever a next step or a new notion is introduced to move forward here, especially in relation to the other existing ongoing efforts. I wanted to share my thoughts on this and then in regards to a potential group of people to lead the coordination of this effort towards few events very soon to happen.

In regards to the other existing fora;

ICANN forum is very specific, while there is a diverse community who also relate to IG issues in there, many others may or may not see themselves fitting there. Besides they do not have to. 1Net comes as a simple collaboration platform that does not require travel, that does not require being part of a constituency, it is really open to everyone in its accessibility too. 

RIR fora are very specific too, in terms of the topics they often consider. Their communities are mostly technical and they deal with mainly addressing policy but they put trust in their leaders to deal with these other relating issues too. Many members of these circles also have an expectation from these people to do so, as part of their responsibilities. Most RIR annual reports or survey results will point to such findings. 

In regards to IGFs, while they are great in terms of having had created this dialogue among wider stakeholders, I see two issues: One is that we often hear that they are there for "dialogue", not for deciding on possible solutions or actual actionable work towards them. So the focus stays in raising awareness, understanding and building bridges towards each other among stakeholders. 

Second there is no real "ongoing"/"continuing" wider participation platform within IGF mechanisms for general public. Again 1Net comes as an alternative here, not as a duplication in my opinion. It is an open platform, I do not need a visa, I do not need to travel, I do not have to wait for a meeting to raise my opinions about all these developments happening alongside and in-between the IGF meetings at any time. In between two IGF meetings, I can use 1Net to continue discussions with other concerned people about shared/common subjects. 

Now, who is going to be on the steering committee is of course an organisational and operational factor, because they will be defining this forum's mandate as they also define the agendas and work actions/talking points etc.  I agree one needs to have some faith to some extend to this process and to the individuals that may be involved with this, to start with.  

Having said all that, I also think nothing without "strong community support" survives in Internet circles (which is why I think most of us are passionate about it anyways.). 

So I hope to see soon clearly what the messages are, and if they are kept simple and clear for everyone and if they relate to those concerned mostly, then 1Net will get stronger due to its "community support" behind it. If not, it will fade away like some others did in the past, as a natural process. This is why I believe representatives had been asked from various groups. While I mentioned I do not want to wear a tag, I can see the benefit of this exercise to be able to move quickly to see what this is all about. 

Otherwise, this has the danger of turning into a vicious circle and it will be a bigger concern. 

Accordingly in my opinion to name a group to set out clear messages of 1Net is one of the ways to move forward and the conversation can move from there on. 
If we do not like what they come up with, sure there will be noise here in this platform again and if also supported by many, I have no doubt it will be raised loud and clear. 

Kind regards

On 07 Dec 2013, at 12:27, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at> wrote:

>> Nigel wrote:
>> Some trust has been lost in the Internet Governance model and it falls on all of us to do what we
>> can to preserve the model we believe in.
> Nigel, thats a very big statement and claim. I don't see where the
> trust factor has been lost by nations, cs, ac, tc and ps in the IGF.
> We saw the ps struggling to make the IGF in Bali a success and even
> have ends meet for its organization through funding. The trust is not
> lost, the effort now appears to assert power as if this power was very
> equal to governments. This is wishful dreaming.
> Fadi being right or wrong is a legitimacy being speculated by this
> group. How can Fadi be right without participating in the WSIS
> process, not attending IGFs before his appointment as ICANN
> CEO/President? Its the legitimacy Fadi gets through his position in
> ICANN and being a representative of one of the stakeholders in the IG
> process. So lets not make such statements that who is right and who is
> wrong????
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at> wrote:
>> Good morning
>> I agree with Nick; let us stay positive; Fadi made it very clear (in
>> numerous public sessions at IG and at ICANN 48) that we are all in this
>> together.  Some trust has been lost in the Internet Governance model and it
>> falls on all of us to do what we can to preserve the model we believe in.
>> ICANN's mission is very much tied to a single, open, secure and
>> interoperable Internet and it is not, therefore, sup rising that we should
>> be involved in a desire to preserve such.
>> Best
>> Nigel
>> From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at>
>> Date: Saturday, December 7, 2013 2:34 AM
>> To: John Curran <jcurran at>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at>
>> Cc: "i-coordination at" <i-coordination at>
>> Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee &
>> Brazil Meeting Organising commitees
>> +1. Do we really need more suspicions of one another - when it is easy to
>> just ask a question?
>> John Curran <jcurran at> wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at> 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 a!
>>>> nd
>>>> 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
>>> ________________________________
>>> I-coordination mailing list
>>> I-coordination at
>> --
>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> -- 
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance:
> Follow my Tweets:
> _______________________________________________
> I-coordination mailing list
> I-coordination at

More information about the I-coordination mailing list