[discuss] NetMundial Initiative

[Adebunmi AKINBO]

+1 Janis
+1 Annriette
+1 Kathy

My stand would be pitched with the above with a slight opinion on the
purpose of WEF.
This also goes to point on why it was important that legitimacy is tied to
NMI (My guess).

However, if we take off from . . .+1 Wolfgang, it spells the difference
that we need to understand.

((5. One can always learn from mistakes, omissions or misunderstandings as
long as there is an open and fair debate. Insofar I thank Avri that she has
mobilized a very useful discussion on this list by asking a very simple but
natural question. Asking questions is very often more helpful as giving
answers, in particular in unchartered territory. ))

With this in view, we now have 'indirect representatives' who will ask
questions and speak the opinion of a larger online community.
It would help resolve and open-up room for the much needed transparency
that we need to understand.

I advice the 'known-Cabal Reps' in our list to ensure feeds from the
meeting (its bound to be streamed live from the look of things) and create
avenues to develop integrity for the WEF as it matures into an NMI
Continuity Platform.

 Stakeholders from developing Countries should not be excluded. Stream can
be stored with resolutions and deadlines for response to such resolution by
the online community. It saves cost of traveling and promote transparency.

Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone.
NiRA, Nigeria.



On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:17 AM, joseph alhadeff <
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

> Exploration of ideas is fine and may well be productive, I just want to
> recall that IGF Bali became less about IGF and more about Net Mundial.
> Istanbul is an important inflection point in the evolution of IGF, while it
> would be of use to hear a report of the meeting of the NMI, we should
> beware that it not take away attention from our essential work on improving
> IGF.  The calls for the WEF initiative to clearly support the further
> development and improvement of the IGF would be an important assurance of
> the proper focus.
>
> Joe
>
> On 8/15/2014 4:30 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>> Thanks Nick, Kathy, Janis etc.
>>
>> I would like to make similar points and add some aspects:
>>
>> 1. It is important that the energy, the steam and the innovative
>> potential which was mobilized by NetMundial does not get lost.
>>
>> 2. One of the priorities of the NetMundial Roadmap is to strengthen the
>> IGF. The risk is that the IGF gets pulled into the WSIS 10+ process. The
>> IGF needs a renewal of its mandate by the UN General Assembly (UNGA)until
>> the end of 2015. Recently the UNGA adopted the general procedures for the
>> high level WSIS 10+ Event in New York in December 2015. This will be a
>> purely intergovernmental meeting and the planned outcome document of this
>> meeting will be negotiated by an intergovernmental preparatory process.
>> There will be a still undefined "parallelel process" where non-governmental
>> stakeholders are invited for "informal consultations". What does this mean?
>> This is obviously not "multistakehoderism in action". This looks rather
>> different from what we have achieved within the IGF. If the renewal of the
>> mandate of the IGF gets pulled into this New York approach towards WSIS 10+
>> and its follow up, this would be bad. Insofar it is important to broaden
>> the support for the IGF by bringing more and strong partners to the
>> process. If presidents, prime ministers, CEOs, the WEF and more strong
>> civil society organisations contribute to the process to strengthen the
>> IGF, based on the NetMundial principles via a NMI, this is helpful.
>>
>> 3. My understanding of the forthcoming Geneva NMI Event is that this is
>> the start of an exploration phase where the broader community tries to find
>> out what the next stumbling steps foreward could be in the still
>> unchartered territory of the Internet Governance Ecosystem. Nothing is
>> predetermined. Discussion starts at the ICANN Studienkreis in Sofia, August
>> 29. It continues with the IGF in Istanbul, ICANN in LA, UN in New York, ITU
>> in Busan, WEF in Davos and numerous other expert meetings and conferences
>> organized by the various governmental and non-governmental players in the
>> global Internet Governance Ecosystem, including national and regional IGFs.
>> And then lets see where we are in spring 2015.
>>
>> 4. The Geneva Event should set the tone for the exploration phase and
>> send a clear signal of support for the Sao Paulo principles, in particular
>> for bottom up open, transparent and inclusive processes. The legitimacy for
>> such an exploration comes with its openess, transparency and inclusivenss.
>> However, to organize such an exploration you need a facilitator. It is
>> important to find the right balance for an equal participation of all
>> stakeholders in their respective roles. The process shold be designed like
>> a "Roman Quadriga": Four horses (stakeholders) contribute with their
>> individual PS in moving a carriage forward.
>>
>> 5. One can always learn from mistakes, omissions or misunderstandings as
>> long as there is an open and fair debate. Insofar I thank Avri that she has
>> mobilized a very useful discussion on this list by asking a very simple but
>> natural question. Asking questions is very often more helpful as giving
>> answers, in particular in unchartered territory.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> Attached is an article on NetMundial which will be published soon.
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Gesendet: Fr 15.08.2014 03:31
>> An: Joe Alhadeff
>> Cc: discuss at 1net.org
>> Betreff: Re: [discuss] NetMundial Initiative
>>
>
>    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 tooperationalise 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 list
>>>>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>>>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> `````````````````````````````````
>>>>> anriette esterhuysen
>>>>> executive director
>>>>> association for progressive communications
>>>>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>>>>> anriette at apc.org
>>>>> www.apc.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140815/473e518d/attachment-0001.html>