[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 199

Mon Apr 28 01:47:41 UTC 2014

Why Phil, that almost sounds Canadian!  (I was not referring to the Senate, where sadly we have been falling down a wee bit on our reputation for niceness lately).  This is a great place to start.  I think strengthening the IGF is a nice relatively neutral middle ground…we can disagree about what it needs to do next, but surely we all can agree that it needs funding.  Byron Holland made a generous announcement on that score at Netmundial, of registries kicking in 100K each, can we come up with further proposals?  With scant staff and infrastructure, it is really hard to grow into a useful component of the ecosystem.  Constant fundraising is a drain on the energy of civil society and developing economies alike. Stability really would be a grand thing.  With funding of course comes accountability and metrics, in a perfect world.
Just one proposal.
cheers Stephanie
On Apr 27, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

> On civil discourse:
> 
> When I began my Washington career on the US Senate staff, one maxim I learned early on was: We can disagree without being disagreeable.
> 
> So let us be agreeable in our differences, knowing that reasonable people can sincerely disagree -- and that there is almost always some starting middle ground of agreement that, with some work, can be expanded.
> 
> 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: Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:20 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 199
> 
> 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: [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING
>      (joseph alhadeff)
>   2. IGF & NetMundial futures was Re: [] [] FINAL VERSION OF	THE
>      DOCUMENT (Avri Doria)
>   3. Re: [governance] FINAL VERSION OF THE Netmundial DOCUMENT
>      (Michel Gauthier)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 17:02:03 -0400
> From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING
> Message-ID: <535D704B.8030503 at oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> 
> I think we can all support the concept, now the question is how to go about it?
> On 4/27/2014 10:40 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> Marilyn -
>>   I find your fourth suggestion particularly appealing, and would 
>> definitely support
>>   1NET maturing into a more organized, collaborative space in which 
>> we can talk
>>   about  "tough topics" (but in a civil manner... :-)
>> 
>> /John
>> 
>> Disclaimer:  My views alone.
>> 
>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com 
>> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 1NET discuss has not yet found commonality of topics that brings 
>>> together a coherent focus that brings in a wide diversity of 
>>> contributors. That is a fact that we all want to move past, and we 
>>> want, undoubtedly, to make 1NET discuss meaningful.
>>> 
>>> So, my fourth proposal is that we strive to find subjects from 
>>> NETmundial, establish different discussions, and strive to advance a 
>>> multi stakeholder discussion that is civil, statesmanlike, and works 
>>> to progress commonality where possible in various topics.
>>> 
>>> The section for further work, under the Roadmap might be a place to 
>>> start.
>>> 
>>> But that will require some restraint from all: that will require 
>>> civility in our posting, mutual respect, even when we disagree.
>>> 
>>> When the IGF was first launched, civility was often lacking in 
>>> exchanges. We had an immensely influential spirit guide -- Nitan -- 
>>> who coached us, mentored us, and today, at the IGF, we do disagree, 
>>> often quite strongly and passionately, but we are civil in the 
>>> discourse, and in the disagreements.
>>> 
>>> During NETmundial, a similar spirit emerged. With some defined topics 
>>> that can benefit from a broad, civil discussion, respecting 
>>> differences, about a broad range of topics.
>>> 
>>> I hope to see the influence of this spirit into 1NET.
>>> 
>>> All can benefit so much from thoughtful discussion, informed 
>>> discussion, expression of different points of views.  But, I do have 
>>> a criteria for whom I listen to, and I listen as much to CS, 
>>> technical community, governments, as I listen to business: and that 
>>> is fact based and civility, even in different and even passionately 
>>> held views.  The benefit of 1NET is that I can listen to diverse 
>>> voices, but I can't if it is only noise and hostility, and lack of 
>>> substance and lack of organization of topics. That is because it 
>>> comes across at static.
>>> 
>>> this is not a criticism of anyone. It is an appeal.
>>> 
>>> I made a statement during NETmundial: we can talk about tough topics, 
>>> but not in a tough way.
>>> 
>>> Recently, George Sadowsky has proposed some evolution of our 
>>> discourse processes for 1NET.
>>> 
>>> I too want to make 1NET a trusted space to talk about tough topics, 
>>> but in a civil and mutually respectful manner. And with some 
>>> organization so that participants can select where/which topics most 
>>> engage them.
>>> 
>>> If we do that, we will make 1NET a truly collaborative, and 
>>> contributing to the broader discussions about IG evolution, and we 
>>> will build on the spirit of NETmundial.
>>> 
>>> And, we will draw so many more to post and contribute to 1NET.
>>> Shall we try?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140427/91bafb73/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 18:36:23 -0300
> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> To: karklinsj at gmail.com, "discuss at 1net.org" <discuss at 1net.org>,
> 	"internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: [discuss] IGF & NetMundial futures was Re: [] [] FINAL
> 	VERSION OF	THE DOCUMENT
> Message-ID: <535D7857.80403 at acm.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> A quick response on having just gotten home.
> 
> On 27-Apr-14 03:04, karklinsj at gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> I would like to comment on your ??it is time to IGF MAG to through off 
>> its self imposed limitations ?.?
> 
> I really wish I had writen "throw off" instead, but, be that as it may.
> 
>> 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:
>> 
> 
> Well, the beginning of change could be possible in 2014.  One would not expect the entire ship to turn to a new course in the next half year, but there is still plenty of time to do something so as not  to lose the momentum.
> 
> Even if it is only to initiate the discussion on:
> 
> "What is it we can learn from NetMundial.
> Taking that into account with the CSTD WGIGF improvement  recommendations, what should we do about it"
> 
>>  *
>>    NetMundial was focused on 2 issues - IGF is broad ranging 
>> discussion
> 
> True, But the IGF can select a single topic on which it wants to arrive at a multistakeholder statement in a year.
> 
> Just because many subjects are discussed, it does not mean they are all ripe for multistakeholder statements.
> 
>>  *
>>    Purpose/aim of both meetings were different
> 
> I would contend the the purpose/aim of each is up to its organizers and participants, those can evolve over time.  They are not fundamentally dissimilar.
> 
> 
>>  *
>>    Drafting of the Final statement started well in advance of 
>> NetMundial
> 
> Indeed, and the IGF is supposed to be more than a single meeting we spend all year planning.  It is supposed to be a continuous process with work that continues from meeting to meeting.
> 
> NetMundial showed that it could be done.  Up until now many assumed that it could not be done.  But now we have a positive example of how to achieve outcomes by using the Internet and other resources effectively to prepare the work in a broad multistakeholder manner.  Imagine what could be done in twice as long (both prep and meeting time).
> 
>>  *
>>    NetMundial had far more resources in terms of Secretarial support
>>    (HL Committee, Bureau)
> 
> Having once been a member of the IGF secretariat, who can no longer find employment with them for financial reasons, I can easily agree with this.  However, a lot has been said about this over the last few years.
> It would seem to me, at this point, that if the IGF can't raise the money for an adequate secretariat after a decade of trying and the CSTD recommendations on the need, then perhaps that is a problem that should be considered before renewing its mandate.  A mendicant forum is really not an appropriate solution to the pressing issues of Ig.
> 
> It is obvious that the money is out there, otherwise NetMundial could never have happened.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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:
> 
> Yes, I saw that call, and heard it repeated.  I wish you success with it.
> 
> Avri
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:49:36 +0200
> From: Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com>
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,
> 	discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] FINAL VERSION OF THE Netmundial
> 	DOCUMENT
> Message-ID: <mailman.79.1398640785.2219.discuss at 1net.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> 
> At 22:53 27/04/2014, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Here's my own "big picture" analysis of the meeting and final stmt from 
>> a civil society perspective: "A Remarkable Achievement, Despite Losses 
>> to Hollywood & Govts Over Specific Language on Most Controversial 
>> Issues"
> 
> Could you quote something tangible that has been committed and signed? I only observe twisted words having been over-twisted. I would love to be shown wrong but I am afraid I am not ...
> 
> M G   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> End of discuss Digest, Vol 5, Issue 199
> ***************************************
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4355 / Virus Database: 3882/7371 - Release Date: 04/20/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss