Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will
probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve
pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the
Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the
Internet".
The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this
huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for
a surprise very soon. :)
fraternal regards
--c.a.
On 10/17/2013 02:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Brenden, read with interest. I particularly noted “Let us also not
> forget that ICANN and its oversight are the main topic of the meeting”.
>
> Is there some specific background to this claim? Is this really a
> conference specifically about ICANN oversight (and if it is, do we
> really think that is a good idea given other current issues?)
>
> Ian Peter
>
> *From:* Brenden Kuerbis <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:20 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Mawaki Chango
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc:* mailto:[log in to unmask] ; Norbert Bollow
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ; Anja Kovacs <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil
> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including
> CS proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both
> President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade.
>
>
>
> Apologies for the cross-post.
>
> I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond
> asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and
> to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed
> agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move
> ICANN away from unilateral oversight:
>
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Anja Kovacs <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> > I do want to
> > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and
> > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before.
>
> *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear.
>
> > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points
> > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the
> consensus
> > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have
> expressed
> > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I
> think it
> > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been
> > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative.
>
> The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained
> opposition”.
> That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are
> strongly
> in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain
> opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend
> political
> capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a
> decision
> in favor.
>
> Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not
> expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a
> consensus decision from being reached.
>
> If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in
> favor, most
> organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would
> never
> reach any decisions.
>
> > we are effectively working against each other here.
>
> Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in
> some of
> the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to
> discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some
> action, I
> strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working
> against each other here”.
>
> In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will
> co-sign it
> does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits
> action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first
> letter it
> could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits
> letter it
> could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do
> understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently.
>
> > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an
> > alternative. If that could be a solution for all
>
> No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since
> I've
> already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present
> letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat
> them again.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
|
