[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53

Wed Aug 27 14:17:46 UTC 2014

Yes, the page is now resolving again.

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

From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 7:38 AM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53

it is working for me.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto: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<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct
202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax
202-255-6172<tel: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> [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>] On Behalf Of discuss-request at 1net.org<mailto:discuss-request at 1net.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53

Send discuss mailing list submissions to
        discuss at 1net.org<mailto: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<mailto:discuss-request at 1net.org>

You can reach the person managing the list at
        discuss-owner at 1net.org<mailto: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<mailto:pindar.wong at gmail.com>>
To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
Cc: "discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>" <discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>>
Subject: Re: [discuss] NetMundial Initiative
Message-ID:
        <CAM7BtUrAzZpis+857LUrf19NdZLBm7WHCUPDuDzsG68m0Q5+Ww at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAM7BtUrAzZpis%2B857LUrf19NdZLBm7WHCUPDuDzsG68m0Q5%2BWw 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>> >
>>>> > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>>> >
>>>> > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>> >
>>>> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Jordan Carter
>>>> > <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > --
>>>> > Jordan Carter
>>>> > Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>>> >
>>>> > +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>>> >
>>>> > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > 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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing
>> listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus<http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus>
>> s
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing
>> listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus<http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus>
>> s
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<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
>
-------------- 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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7992 - Release Date: 08/06/14
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140827/1ad0f2d3/attachment-0001.html>