[discuss] NetMundial Initiative

[Nnenna Nwakanma]

I woke up early this morning and read Anne Jellema (CEO of Web
Foundation)'s blog post. She titled it "Fall of Internet Governance?"
<https://webfoundation.org/2014/08/the-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/discuss
>
>
> --
> `````````````````````````````````
> 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/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
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140815/cc3ab640/attachment-0001.html>