[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