[discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING

Christian de Larrinaga cdel at firsthand.net
Wed Apr 30 16:08:58 UTC 2014


Sticking to voluntary adoption is critical.

It has been a hard battle for protocols (IETF). 

One interesting aspect that Istanbul may well witness I expect is agenda
being presented by well funded interested parties who have already
achieved regulation and legislation in a jurisdiction and are now trying
to promote their "correct" policy globally.

With that pressure in the kettle I expect IGF is going to need to have a
number of effective relief valves to keep things voluntary and
conversation not too interesting.


Christian

Markus Kummer wrote:
> I also see a strong correlation, if not a cross-fertilization, between the
> IGF and NETmundial. The IGF paved the way for NETmundial and NETmundial is
> now demonstrating how to reach a rough consensus in a multistakeholder
> setting. Having said that, NETmundial has also reminded us that the nature
> of the dialogue changes, if there is pressure to produce an outcome
> document.
>
> The IGF may be in a position to come to closure on some issues, but not on
> others. Therefore, a hybrid format may be the best way forward, providing
> a space for free-ranging dialogue while at the same time aiming to seek
> closure on some issues that are sufficiently mature to allow for a rough
> consensus. 
>
> ISOC recognized that the IGF after Bali was ready to take the next step
> towards more tangible outputs. The paper we submitted as an input into the
> February consultation suggests seeking inspiration from the IETF and
> moving towards producing outputs for voluntary adoption. We proposed
> reviving best practices sessions on issues where we know that solutions
> exist, such as spam or IXPs. The outcome of the sessions could be
> documented best practices on these issues. It is my understanding that
> this is now under discussion by the MAG.
>
> Other issues will continue to be issues for debate. Here again, NETmundial
> has identified one issue that needs further discussion: net neutrality.
> The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement provides a helpful framing for
> this debate ("how to enable freedom of expression, competition, consumer
> choice, meaningful transparency and appropriate network management"). This
> should foster an interesting debate in Istanbul!
>
>
> Markus 
>
> ________________________________________
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org <discuss-bounces at 1net.org> on behalf of
> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:09 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you.
>
> I will be observing remotely and look forward to seeing how you all
> handle the issues.  As several of us have indicated, this is critical in
> considerations for IGF's future.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 29-Apr-14 17:56, Janis Karklins wrote:
>> Milton, Jeanette, Avri, Giacomo, Raul, Izumi, Jeremi, all
>>
>> I hear you and promise that the MAG during the open consultations and
>> its own meeting in Paris 19/21 May will discuss lessons from NetMundial
>> and will suggest the best possible agenda and tangible outputs of the
>> IGF. We will take into account points of view of all stakeholder groups.
>> The Report of the CSTD WG on improvements of the IGFwill be guiding us
>> in a same way as impressions and energy of the NetMundial.
>> I fully share the desire to use the momentum that has been created by
>> the NetMundial to improve the IGF. Pls join the MAG at the open
>> consultations that we can create good dynamics in discussions and take
>> well informed decisions.
>>
>> JK
>>
>> PS: Milton, sorry that I didn't hear your intervention at the "way
>> forward" session (as I was working on the Statement's text alongside
>> with many others), but I will read the transcript. JK
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     Janis:
>>     I would strongly endorse Jeanette's comments. When I spoke at the
>>     "way forward" panel on the last day, several CS activists begged me
>>     to endorse the "strengthen IGF" theme, and by "strengthen" they
>>     meant significant changes, including outcome documents. Others
>>     expressed their support for a continuation of Netmundial because of
>>     their belief that IGF, despite its importance as an outlet for ideas
>>     and workshops, was not capable of the kind of constructive changes
>>     that would make it the inheritor of the positive momentum of
>>     Netmundial. Even before your response, I leaned toward the latter
>>     view. Now, I must say that unless IGF makes significant moves to
>>     learn from and capitalize on the experience of Netmundial it will
>>     gradually lose credibility, and participation, including mine.
>>
>>     --MM
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>
>>     [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>]
>>     On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>     Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 7:31 AM
>>     To: discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>; karklinsj at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com>
>>     Subject: Re: [discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR
>> PRINTING
>>
>>     Dear Janis,
>>
>>     to be honest, I was hoping for a more encouraging response. In
>>     addition to an enormous amount of secretarial capacity and
>>     committment, I thought there was a lot of good will to explore new
>>     precedures and to produce a new type of collective outcome.
>>     Moreover, many participants assessed the dynamics of netmundial
>>     against the background of the IGF asking themselves how specific
>>     elements of netmundial could be imported into the IGF in order to
>>     revive and improve the latter.
>>
>>     You are of course right that the overall context, aims and purposes
>>     of both meetings differ. It is also true that the netmundial process
>>     was far from being perfect. Still, in my view we should now ask
>>     ourselves what can be learned from netmundial with a view to
>>     improving the IGF and which of such improvements could already be
>>     implemented this year.
>>
>>
>>     The call for IGF outcomes is everything but new. Several years ago
>>     towards the end of its first term, the MAG discussed a new meeting
>>     format for specific topics that had been on the agenda for various
>>     years and had cleary exhausted the potential insights to be gained
>>     from additional IGF workshops. Child pornography was mentioned as an
>>     example.
>>       The idea as I recall it was, to assemble the various experts,
>>     stakeholders and views on the issue and get them to agree on a
>>     limited number of factual problem statements and, if possible,
>>     recommendations.
>>     We were not able to explore this approach because one stakeholder
>>     group obviously got cold feet and lobbied against it. Now might be
>>     the time to give this a second try.
>>
>>     Yes, such an approach would need preparation. A draft statement
>>     should be prepared by the relevant actors in advance of the meeting
>>     so that everybody knows what is at stake and has a chance to form an
>>     opinion on the issue at stake. It seems still early enough to set in
>>     motion such an experiment for one specific topic.
>>
>>     In my view, the IGF needs to prove that it can reform itself. More
>>     funding will come along if it does so.
>>
>>     jeanette
>>
>>     Am 27.04.14 08:04, schrieb karklinsj at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com>:
>>     > Avri,
>>     >
>>     > I would like to comment on your ³Šit is time to IGF MAG to through
>> off
>>     > its self imposed limitations Š.²
>>     > Agreeing that IGF needs to find a way to demonstrate more tangible
>>     > outcome of its work, I doubt that NetMundial experience will be
>>     > applied in 2014/2015 editions. There are several reasons for that:
>>     >
>>     >   *
>>     >     NetMundial was focused on 2 issues - IGF is broad ranging
>>     discussion
>>     >   *
>>     >     Purpose/aim of both meetings were different
>>     >   *
>>     >     Drafting of the Final statement started well in advance of
>>     NetMundial
>>     >   *
>>     >     NetMundial had far more resources in terms of Secretarial
>> support
>>     >     (HL Committee, Bureau)
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > That said, I hope that IGF will be able to demonstrate that things
>>     > happen as a result of IGF elsewhere. You know that I launched a
>> call
>>     > for a voluntary information submission:
>>     >
>>     > /The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on
>> the
>>     > Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform on
>>     > Internet governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to
>>     > provide a platform for information exchange, identify emerging
>>     > challenges and possible solutions to addressing them, provide
>> capacity
>>     > building, identify and disseminate best practices and forge
>>     > partnerships for concrete actions./
>>     >
>>     > /Over the past few years, some sceptics of the IGF have suggested
>> that
>>     > no actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at the
>> IGF -
>>     > that it is just a ³talk shop²./
>>     >
>>     > /In order to dissipate those doubts about the ³action orientation²
>> of
>>     > the IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete actions
>> and
>>     > decisions that have been taken by different stakeholders as a
>> result
>>     > of the engagement and discussions of Internet related issues at the
>>     > various IGFs (international, regional or national)./
>>     >
>>     > /In this respect, I would like to invite all of those organizations
>>     > and institutions that would be willing to share information, *on a
>>     > voluntary basis*, about concrete decisions or actions that have
>> been
>>     > taken as a result of engagement during the current mandate of the
>> IGF
>>     > the 2011,
>>     > 2012 and 2013 IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGF
>>     > Secretariat (/_/discussion_questions@//intgovforum.org/_
>>     <http://intgovforum.org/_>
>>     > <mailto:discussion_questions at intgovforum.org
>>     <mailto:discussion_questions at intgovforum.org>>/) by 30 June 2014. The
>>     > Secretariat will compile all information received and will present
>> a
>>     > synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF./
>>     >
>>     > /Thank you for your participation/
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > /Janis Karklins/
>>     >
>>     > /Interim Chair of the MAG/
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > The IGF Secretariat will compile all submissions and I intend
>> present
>>     > them at the opening of Istanbul IGF meeting. I hope that report
>> will
>>     > dissipate, at least partially, perception that IGF is merely a
>>     talk-shop.
>>     > With greetings from sunny and warm Riga JK
>>     >
>>     > Sent from Surface
>>     >
>>     > *From:* Avri Doria <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>     > *Sent:* Saturday, April 26, 2014 10:59 PM
>>     > *To:* discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>     <mailto:discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>>,
>>     > internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
>>     <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
>>     <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
>>     <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>>
>>     >
>>     > Hi,
>>     >
>>     > And beyond exegesis and spin on the document we should try to
>> import
>>     > some of those techniques into the IGF so that it can also learn
>> how to
>>     > produce some outcomes, e.g. inputs from IGF to other Ig
>> organizations.
>>     >
>>     > Following the lead of NetMundial, it is time for the IGF MAG to
>> throw
>>     > off its self imposed limitation of being merely a program
>> committee so
>>     > it can make recommendations to the UNSG on how to turn the IGF
>> into an
>>     > organization that can actually produce results.  While it is true
>> that
>>     > the IGF has achieved a little just by existing, at this point if it
>>     > wants to remain viable it needs to move beyond its infancy and
>> become
>>     > a useful organization.
>>     >
>>     > In addition to some of the important work done by NetMundial in
>>     > bridging the gap between the Internet and Human Rights and opening
>> the
>>     > door to discussions on revising the government defined roles and
>>     > responsibilities of the actors in the Internet ecosystem from
>> 2003, it
>>     > has shown us that it is possible for a multistakeholder
>> organization
>>     > to produce outcomes.  It is now time for the IGF to figure out how
>> to
>>     > do the same.
>>     >
>>     > Additionally, the NetMundial has sent some tasks the IGF's way.  I
>>     > look forward to work on such issues as Net Neutrality at IGF2014.
>>     >
>>     > The mission of the IGF has been given a real push by NetMundial, I
>>     > hope we don't waste the opportunity.
>>     >
>>     > avri
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On 26-Apr-14 16:36, John Curran wrote:
>>     >  > On Apr 25, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Marilyn Cade
>>     <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>>     > > <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com
>>     <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>> wrote:
>>     >  >
>>     >  >> I think the opportunity ahead is how to further examine what
>> the
>>     > >> "statement of Sao Paolo" says and how to continue work,
>> especially
>>     > at  >> IGF,  but not only there.
>>     >  >
>>     >  > Indeed.
>>     >  > /John
>>     >  >
>>     >  > Disclaimer: My views alone.
>>     >  >
>>     >  >
>>     >  >
>>     >  > _______________________________________________
>>     >  > discuss mailing list
>>     >  > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>     >  > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>     >  >
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > discuss mailing list
>>     > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>     > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > discuss mailing list
>>     > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>     > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>     >
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     discuss mailing list
>>     discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
FBCS, CITP, MCMA
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel at firsthand.net
-------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140430/86ec3f10/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 599 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140430/86ec3f10/signature-0001.asc>


More information about the discuss mailing list