[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53

Wed Aug 27 11:38:07 UTC 2014

it is working for me.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

> Anyone know what is going on with this WEF-GIG Initiative?
>
> I just clicked on the link
> http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance to jot down some
> information about the 8/28 meeting, and what I got was this:
>
> Sorry, access denied. You are not authorized to access this page.
>
> That's not very transparent.
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
> Behalf Of discuss-request at 1net.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53
>
> Send discuss mailing list submissions to
>         discuss at 1net.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         discuss-request at 1net.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         discuss-owner at 1net.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: NetMundial Initiative (Pindar Wong)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:12:44 +0800
> From: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong at gmail.com>
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Cc: "discuss at 1net.org" <discuss at 1net.org>
> Subject: Re: [discuss] NetMundial Initiative
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAM7BtUrAzZpis+857LUrf19NdZLBm7WHCUPDuDzsG68m0Q5+Ww at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I guess the details will surface during tomorrow's event.
>
> However does anyone know the remote participation details?
>
> >From the FAQ: ' Both working sessions and the press conference will be
> webcast live, and there will be an active blog and discussion board
> established to facilitate a two-way flow of information with the public'
>
> p.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> >  I am very curious as to what the precise funding is for the NMI
> > initiative at the WEF.  Does anyone know?
> > Kind regards,
> > Stephanie Perrin
> > On 2014-08-15, 2:14, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
> >
> >   I woke up early this morning and read Anne Jellema (CEO of Web
> > Foundation)'s blog post. She titled it "Fall of Internet Governance?"
> >
> >  I found it interesting, especially from the civil society point of view.
> >
> > Nnenna
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Chip Sharp (chsharp)
> > <chsharp at cisco.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>  Nick, all,
> >> I hope you all are doing well.  Please keep in mind that what has
> >> been leaked is an invitation list, not an attendance list.  I don't
> >> assume it is a list of supporters.  I just don't see all the invited
> >> industry CEOs dropping everything on short notice and flying to Davos.
> >> I'm just going to have to wait and hear what those of you who choose
> >> to attend report back and what is reported out at IGF.
> >>
> >>  Chip
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:33 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <
> >> nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Dear Joe and all,
> >>
> >>  I think Janis? reply to yours below and Kathy?s after that captured
> >> the essence of what I would say. I would add two things:
> >>
> >>  From what has been leaked, the level of support is robust and broad;
> >> it is particularly welcome to see so many senior industry leaders
> >> from ?non-traditional? Internet governance-engaged firms on board
> >> this early. I also like hearing that major NGOs who have historically
> >> had limited time and effort for Internet policy are getting involved.
> >> We need their muscle, their ideas, and their expertise.
> >>
> >>  Secondly, I would add that as I know Rick Samans of WEF and have
> >> spoken to him at length about the Internet policy landscape I think
> >> the process will end up being a real asset to the very difficult
> >> situation that the Internet faces, where, frankly, the traditional
> >> 'Internet Governance? space is being wagged by much bigger and more
> >> powerful dogs to the detriment of everyone. We need new, and high
> >> level, engagement and new collaborative processes to get to a place
> >> where we are working from shared positive incentives and across much
> >> broader areas than traditional Internet Governance represents and
> covers.
> >>
> >>  Regards Nick
> >>  On 14 Aug 2014, at 12:52, joseph alhadeff
> >> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>  I wanted to write to echo many of Anriette's sentiments.  I too am
> >> writing in my personal capacity as we are canvassing the ICC-BASIS
> >> membership on their views.
> >>
> >> First, let me clarify that while business actively engaged in the Net
> >> Mundial meeting and supported it's outcomes, there were significant
> >> process and other shortcomings in the runup and operation of Net
> >> Mundial.  Business has not focused on these issues as we believed
> >> that it was more important to focus on achievements rather than
> >> shortcomings, but if there are attempts to institutionalize the
> >> concept of Net Mundial, then this line of inquiry will need to be
> explored in detail.
> >>
> >> Second, Net Mundial played an important role at a point in time,
> >> where reflection and inflection was needed; it served that purpose
> >> well.  It is unclear to me that there is any permanent need for such
> and event.
> >>
> >> Third, I would respectfully disagree with those most recent posts
> >> that justify the WEF initiative by the fumbling of IGF.  Can and
> >> should IGF be improved?  Yes, absolutely.  Does IGF play a useful
> >> role, even in its present role, I believe it does.  After these years
> >> of IGF we have begun to take the conversation it engenders for
> >> granted.  While these multistakeholder conversations don't yield
> >> immediate results they are the stepping stones to understanding and a
> >> foundation of consensus.  IGF remains one of the few places if not
> >> *the* place for such conversation to occur.  The frustration is that
> >> we don't build on the small victories in consensus, we don't properly
> >> capture the capacity building and we are not sufficiently innovative
> >> in considering how to approach these issues.  Net Mundial and the
> >> prep for this IGF has increased the focus on these topis and has
> >> generated some hope and anticipation for real improvements to be
> >> considered. These improvements  should not be made at the expense of
> >> the unique DNA of the organization - the avoidance of positions
> >> around negotiated text.  We have alphabets of three and four letter
> organizations already engaged in that trade and we need no more of those.
> >>
> >> Fourth, The WEF NMI.  I would concur that this is an inauspicious way
> >> to launch a multistakeholder initiative.  The process we are all
> >> engaged in now, rooting out facts and chasing down rumors, is
> >> somewhat reminiscent of what we were doing in Bali related to what
> >> would become Net Mundial. While there may be some beneficial need for
> >> positive engagement from the top, mutlistakeholder must also have
> >> bottom up roots.  WEF may have a role to play, but to do so they must
> >> be more transparent as to motivation, outcomes, process and
> >> participation.  It is also important for the WEF NMI to reinforce, as
> >> Net Mundial did, the important role of IGF and highlight how they will
> support that role and function.
> >>
> >> I would also like to point out that this fact clearing-house function
> >> may do more to return active participation to the 1net discuss list
> >> than any topic since Net Mundial.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> n 8/14/2014 11:10 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote
> >>
> >> Thanks for this excellent post Anriette.  Obviously, I agree
> >> whole-heartedly.  I am very glad you are going, and I wish you all
> >> the luck in the world.  You will likely need it.
> >> Best wishes.
> >> Stephanie Perrin
> >> On 14-08-14 8:00 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> Writing this in my personal capacity. My organisation, the
> >> Association for Progressive Communications, has not yet finalised its
> >> reaction to this discussion.
> >>
> >> I have not been involved in the NETmundial initiative, but have been
> >> aware of it since ICANN 50 in London. I have been invited to the 28
> >> August event.
> >>
> >> Aside from those concerns already stated on this list, which I share,
> >> I want to add I am not convinced that this initiative, based at the
> >> WEF, and adopting a 'get all the great leaders into the room'
> >> approach is what is really needed to build on the substantial
> achievements of the NETmundial.
> >>
> >> I have always been an admirer of initiative and risk taking in the
> >> service of the 'greater good' and I don't want to condemn the
> >> NETmundial initiative or its initiators.  I do believe it should be
> >> viewed critically however, as a lot is at stake.
> >>
> >> Getting process right is never easy, but it is important to try hard
> >> to do so, particularly when building something that is intended to be
> >> long term.
> >>
> >> The NETmundial process was not perfect, but it made a HUGE effort to
> >> be inclusive and transparent. The degree to which it succeeded
> >> contributed to its legitimacy and success.  The NETmundial Initiative
> >> needs to consider this very carefully.  Of course it makes sense to
> >> work with smaller groups of people to get any initiative going, but
> >> in the internet world, and probably in the world everywhere these
> >> days, not being transparent about how these smaller groups are
> >> constituted and how they operate is 1) a lost cause as leaking can be
> >> assumed, 2) not necessary and 3) probably somewhat foolish.
> >>
> >> But assuming that the NETmundial Initiative process will become more
> >> transparent and inclusive in the next few weeks, I still have a
> >> fundamental concern about its format and location.  I am not
> >> convinced that it is tactically what is really needed to build on the
> >> substantial achievements of the NETmundial, the IGF before it, and
> >> the many people who have tried to make multi-stakeholder internet
> >> policy processes work in the real world over the last decade.
> >>
> >> My reasons are (mostly) as follows:
> >>
> >> *1) Choice of 'location' in the context of power and politics in
> >> multi-stakeholder internet governance*
> >>
> >> Most of us consider the NETmundial a success and the NETmundial
> >> statement a strong, positive document that avoids the traps of 'cheap'
> consensus.
> >>
> >> By that I mean that the final statement reflects consensus,
> >> disagreement, and issues that need follow-up and further elaboration.
> >> That not all agreed on the pre-final draft (there were some last
> >> minute disagreements about text related to  intermediary liability
> >> and surveillance) with the final version reflecting these
> >> negotiations actually makes it an even stronger document, in my view,
> >> even if some of the text I would have liked to see in it was
> >> excluded. To me this represents that the stakeholders involved in the
> >> development of the text were able to work together, and disagree. The
> >> disagreement was resolved in favour of the more power and influential
> >> - not civil society of course. I don't mind this. It reflects
> >> reality. And I know that civil society did also gain hugely with most
> >> of our demands making it through. Over time these power arrangements
> >> might change, and those of us working for the public interested in
> >> these processes have to keep on contesting, and negotiating.
> Multi-stakeholder processes where this does not happen are not worth the
> time we spend on them.
> >>
> >> Power and influence matters, and will continue to do so. In choosing
> >> a site for taking the NETmundial forward attention has to be given to
> >> ensuring that it is a platform where dynamics related to power and
> >> influence among stakeholders in IG is able to play themselves out on
> >> a relatively equal playing field, with that playing field becoming
> >> more equal as time goes on.
> >>
> >> WEF does not provide this.  Yes, certain big name civil society
> >> leaders attend WEF meetings. Others are present. Developing country
> >> leaders also attend, and it is seen as a powerful pro-business, pro
> >> US and Europe forum for reaching business leaders, and facilitating
> >> networking among the prominent and powerful (with some being both).
> >>
> >> But is it the right space to establish something sustained, inclusive
> >> and bottom up that can gradually lead the way in building the
> >> legitimacy and inclusiveness needed to operationalise the NETmundial
> >> outcomes at global, regional, and national levels? I don't think so.
> >>
> >> I say this not to disrespect the staff of the WEF or people who
> >> participate in WEF forums, or of ICANN, or anyone else involved in
> >> the NETmundial initiative. But first and foremost as someone from a
> >> developing country who has experienced the ups and downs and highs
> >> and lows of multistakeholder IG for a long time and secondly as a
> >> member of civil society. To me WEF simply does not feel like a space
> >> where developing country people and civil society will ever have a
> >> equal power with powerful "northern" governments and global business.
> >>
> >> *2) What do we really need to*
> >>
> >> *operationalise and consolidate the NETmundial outcomes?  *Glamorous
> >> gatherings of the powerful and prominent in IG (be they government,
> >> from the north and the south, tech community, business or civil
> >> society) will help to keep networking going, create the opportunity
> >> for self-congratulation for those of us who were part of the
> >> NETmundial in some way (and I had the privilege to make submissions
> >> online, and to be involved in the co-chairing some of the drafting on
> site in Sao Paulo).
> >>
> >> But is that what is really needed to integrate what the NETmundial
> >> stands for (public interested, democratic multistakeholder and human
> >> rights oriented internet governance) into the day to day running of
> >> the internet in ways that will be felt by existing and future users?
> >>
> >> I don't think so.
> >>
> >> I think that what is needed is  building lasting (and they have to be
> >> very strong because they will be attacked) bridges between a process
> >> such as NETmundial, and its outcomes, and institutions and people
> >> that make governance and regulatory decisions on a day to day basis.
> >> I want to see, for example, freedom of expression online enshrined in
> >> the contitutions of very government of the world. I want governments
> >> (and where relevant,
> >> businesses) to be held accountable for making sure that all people
> >> everywhere can access the internet.
> >>
> >> This means engaging those that are not yet part of the
> >> multi-stakeholder internet governance 'in-crowd'.  It requires
> >> working with national governments. Regional intergovernmental bodies
> >> as well as international onces, including those in the UN system.
> >>
> >> Will a NETmundial Initiative based at the WEF prevent the rejection
> >> of multi-stakeholder processes (and of women's rights for that
> >> matter) that was evident in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
> >> Cooperation?  Or efforts among ITU member states to increase
> >> governmental oversight over internet governance? Or tension between
> >> blocks of states with divides between the developed and the developing
> world?
> >>
> >> I think that is the test it will need to pass with flying colours if
> >> it were to make the gains that are needed, and that are not already
> >> being made through processes such as the IGF, even if only in part.
> >> And a good starting point would be to identify how those governments
> >> that were at the NETmundial, but whom did not support the final
> >> statement publicly (some said publicly they did not support it, and
> >> others failed to show support simply by staying silent).
> >>
> >> How do they feel about this WEF-based NETmundial initiative? I see
> >> some of them are invited. I know of at least one, present in Sao
> >> Paulo and invited to the NETmundial Initiative, who does not support
> either.
> >>
> >> Apologies for ranting and raving somewhat. The point I am trying to
> >> make is that for internet regulation across the ecosystem to comply
> >> with the principles in the NETmundial statement and get get the
> >> NETmundial roadmap used as a guide we don't need more expensive
> >> global gatherings.  We need existing governance institutions and
> >> processes, including those not yet on the multi-stakeholder
> >> bandwagon, to consider and adopt NETmundial principles and integrate
> >> those into their governance decisions and processes. And I am not
> >> convinced that a WEF based forum constituted in the way the NETmundial
> Initiative has been, is up to that task.
> >>
> >> *3) NETmundial **Initiative and the IGF and the broader internet
> >> community*
> >>
> >> The NETmundial outcome documents mentions the IGF repeatedly. It
> >> recommends strengthening of the IGF, and asks the IGF to take the
> >> discussion of complex IG issues forward. This reflects both the
> >> inputs received prior to the Sao Paulo meeting, as well as
> >> deliberations in Sao Paulo.  It reflects the will of those from ALL
> >> stakeholder groups who participated in the NETmundial.
> >>
> >> I therefore find completely inappropriate that an initiative which
> >> takes the name of the NETmundial, and which sets out to take the
> >> NETmundial outcomes forward, does not have a closer link to the IGF.
> >>
> >> In fact, at the very least it should have used the IGF as a platform
> >> for presenting itself and getting feedback from the broader community
> >> active in the internet governance ecosystem which has been using the
> >> IGF as its primary discussion space.
> >>
> >> The IGF is an existing forum that is still linked to the UN system,
> >> and through that, to those parts of the internet governance ecosystem
> >> populated by governments. It is a bridge. It needs to be stronger,
> >> and used more, but it exists and many of us has put a lot of work
> >> into it over the last 8 years.
> >>
> >> Without much capacity and resources, the IGF continues year after
> >> year, overwhelmed with a demand from the internet community it cannot
> >> come close to meet (e.g. no of workshop proposals that cannot be
> accommodated).
> >> Regional and national IGFs have their own trajectory too.. ups and
> >> downs there too.. but overall becoming more inclusive.  The IGF
> >> process has not even begun to fulfill its potential. Particularly not
> >> at the level of interacting with other institutions and capturing and
> >> communicating the outcomes from IGF discussions effectively.
> >>
> >> 1000s of people have been working in this IGF processes, people who
> >> are trying to create change on the ground by getting different
> >> stakeholder groups to listen to one another and work towards a more
> >> inclusive and fair internet. People who are trying to find
> >> constructive ways of challenging practices (be they driven by
> governments or business) that, for example.
> >> blocks affordable access, or free expression on the internet.  If you
> >> count all the IGFs around the world we are talking about 10s of
> >> thousands of people.  The lack of respect shown to all these people
> >> and organisations by NETmundial Initiative rings loud alarm bells in my
> ears.
> >>
> >> I might be overly sensitive.  I will really happy if my skepticism
> >> proves to be unfounded as I really do believe that we need democratic
> >> multi-stakeholder governance of the internet, and I believe that the
> >> NETmundial principles can help us get there.
> >>
> >> I guess I am also somewhat saddened.. having invested so much in th
> >> NETmundial, that this, the first initiative after April 2014 to take
> >> its name, is doing such a bad job at living up to what the NETmundial
> >> process principles advocate.
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  On 14/08/2014 09:52, Chris Disspain wrote:m
> >>
> >>  I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to
> >> attention of the industry leaders and key government representatives
> >> Internet governance issues, emphasising the need of preservation and
> >> promotion of the multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the
> >> IGF as a multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging
> >> participation in its work of those companies and governments that
> >> haven't been involved until kn
> >>
> >> (l
> >>  Yes, that is also my understanding. A particular emphasis was made
> >> of supporting the IGF but, I guess, time will tell.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  Cheers, wha
> >>
> >>  Chri
> >>
> >>  On 14 Aug 2014, at 17:39 , Janis Karklins <karklinsj at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>  As being one of invited to the launch event of the WEF initiative I
> >> would like to share information that I possess.
> >>
> >> The World Economic Forum is an international institution committed to
> >> improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation
> >> (statement on the website). WEFcommunities are various and more can
> >> be seen athttp://www.weforum.org/communities. Organizationally the
> >> WEFis membership organization where big multinationals from all over
> >> the world are widely represented. The WEF invites representatives of
> >> governments, academia, civil society, world of arts participate in
> >> their meetings and engage with key industry leaders. This explains
> >> why the invitees list is one you see.
> >>
> >> I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to
> >> attention of the industry leaders and key government representatives
> >> Internet governance issues, emphasising the need of preservation and
> >> promotion of the multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the
> >> IGF as a multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging
> >> participation in its work of those companies and governments that
> >> haven't been involved until know.
> >>
> >> I know that Alan Markus intends to present and discuss the initiative
> >> at the 2014 IGF meeting and there will be ample opportunity for the
> >> IG community to clarify details.
> >>
> >> I hope that this information is useful.
> >> JK
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Joana Varon<joana at varonferraz.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> *Current status of IG debate:* we need leaks to know what is going on!
> >>> Pretty bad for a start.
> >>>
> >>>  @jordan carter: "why a noted business centred forum is the place to
> >>> launch an Internet governance initiative?" - a question to be echoed
> indeed.
> >>>
> >>>  It is a shame after the whole attempt of NETMudial to innovate in a
> >>> meeting process, seeking some transparency, openness and inclusion,
> >>> something like this comes up under the same "brand". Hello Brazil?!
> >>>
> >>>  @jeremy and members of the so called "evil cabal", if you go, you
> >>> have an important role to feed people with the most important asset:
> >>> information. I bet we will be always prompt for feedback.
> >>>
> >>>  hoping for the best, though looking at... the worst?
> >>>
> >>>  regards
> >>>
> >>>  joana
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz
> >>> @joana_varon
> >>> PGP 0x016B8E73
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Seth
> >>> Johnson<seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> More that the IGF phase wasn't going to work.  IGF has always been
> >>>> in a tough spot, not so much fumbling the ball -- as if that's
> >>>> anything other than an endemic feature of any organization of a
> >>>> similar institutional nature -- but not empowered and pining for
> standing.
> >>>> But Netmundial wasn't executed well in that regard (they announced
> >>>> sponsorship of IGF, but they also weren't quite able to make things
> >>>> stick), so they need to patch he information society process up by
> >>>> a more blunt move that steps past IGF rather than going through a
> >>>> process of engaging folks in issues via IGF as per plan.  I think
> >>>> they're figuring they'll be able to just brazen it out.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> > I think it's more the case that the IGF has so badly fumbled the
> >>>> > ball
> >>>> that
> >>>> > it falls to someone - anyone - else to pick it up. But that is
> >>>> > not to discount the valid criticisms that others have expressed
> >>>> > and that I
> >>>> agree
> >>>> > with.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Disclaimer: I'm a member of the evil cabal.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --
> >>>> > Jeremy Malcolm
> >>>> > Senior Global Policy Analyst
> >>>> > Electronic Frontier Foundation
> >>>> > https://eff.org
> >>>> > jmalcolm at eff.org
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> >>>> >
> >>>> > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Jordan Carter
> >>>> > <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Can someone explain why a noted business centred forum is the
> >>>> > place to launch an Internet governance initiative?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I genuinely don't understand that.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I thought the whole lesson of netmundial was that genuine multi
> >>>> stakeholder
> >>>> > approaches work well, not that it was a nice experiment to be
> ignored.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > It would be helpful if those who rule us, as it were, would
> >>>> > rapidly
> >>>> disclose
> >>>> > some authoritative information.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Jordan
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Thursday, 14 August 2014, Stephen Farrell <
> >>>> stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Gotta say... seems like elitist nonsense to me having looked at
> >>>> >> the invite list and other docs. The elitist part should be
> >>>> >> obvious. The nonsense part is due to  almost none of the list of
> >>>> >> invitees being known for knowing about the Internet. It seems
> >>>> >> much more an elite than an Internet-savvy list of folks being
> >>>> >> asked to form a new cabal. That said, cabals aren't all bad, and
> >>>> >> I've no reason to think very badly of this particular subset of
> >>>> >> the elite and its I guess just more meaningless policy stuff so
> >>>> >> I don't need to care very much.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> That said, it seems a pity for this to be the next step after
> >>>> >> the Brazil gig which seemed relatively open.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> S.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On 14/08/14 02:36, William Drake wrote:
> >>>> >> > Hi
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > I proposed several times to the 1NET Co Com that 1NET explore
> >>>> serving as
> >>>> >> > a more open multistakeholder vehicle for connecting people to
> >>>> >> > the
> >>>> NETmundial
> >>>> >> > Initiative.  Several members expressed support for that, but
> >>>> >> > since
> >>>> how the
> >>>> >> > NMI will evolve remains very unclear it?s hard to know ex ante
> >>>> >> > how
> >>>> this
> >>>> >> > could work.  I made the same suggestion to Fadi in London,
> >>>> >> > didn?t
> >>>> get much
> >>>> >> > reaction.
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > As I understand the basic idea, NMI will have a six month
> >>>> >> > launch
> >>>> managed
> >>>> >> > by WEF but the hope would be that this leads to something
> >>>> >> > broader
> >>>> and more
> >>>> >> > inclusive in a second phase.  Not how I would have done it,
> >>>> >> > but
> >>>> that said I
> >>>> >> > wouldn?t assume before the fact that the second phase will not
> >>>> come.  We
> >>>> >> > have to see for starters how the conversation goes 28 August
> >>>> >> > and
> >>>> what is
> >>>> >> > possible?
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > Bill
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >> Hi,
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> Just wondering, is this a proper list for those who have been
> >>>> catching
> >>>> >> >> bits and pieces of the ICANN/WEF 'NetMundial Initiaitve' to
> >>>> >> >> be discussed.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> I think it might be, and have even suggested it to others,
> >>>> >> >> but
> >>>> figured
> >>>> >> >> I
> >>>> >> >> better check first.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> avri
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> >> 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
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --
> >>>> > --
> >>>> > Jordan Carter
> >>>> > Chief Executive, InternetNZ
> >>>> >
> >>>> > +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
> >>>> >
> >>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> > 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >> listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus
> >> s
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> `````````````````````````````````
> >> anriette esterhuysen
> >> executive director
> >> association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville,
> >> 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discuss mailing
> >> listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus
> >> s
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discuss mailing
> >> listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus
> >> s
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing
> > listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140827/c94d7eee/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> End of discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53
> **************************************
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7992 - Release Date: 08/06/14
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140827/a9ff0805/attachment-0001.html>