[discuss] NetMundial Initiative - My initial thoughts (As at mid August 2014)

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Dear Marilyn,

It sounds like the problem is not NMI but a meeting chair that let a 
meeting go off-topic for an extended period ;)

Internet Governance is important but only one part of a much broader 
Internet policy landscape. NMI it seems to me has a chance to bridge the 
gap between IG and everything else.

We will all hear more about NMI in a few days. As you say, the IGF is 
coming up soon, better to keep focussed on it; NMI activities largely come 
after it ends.


On 21 August 2014 12:31:26 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I was at a meeting yesterday where the participants said that NMI was Not 
> to overtake IGF. But just to be only a non event, fitting into larger picture.
>
> A govt said it was invited join SC, but doesn't know what the purpose of 
> the Initiative, or the funding is. Someone said ICANN
> Is funding, but ICANN
> Was not in the room.
>
>  Just talking about what is Not known took 30-40 % of time out of agenda.
>
> We are better than this --core focus is IGF.
>
> Let's make sure parties whomever they are fund the
> IGF first, and ask relevant questions , and "see"
> What the value added is. For any initiative. But do not lose our focus on 
> our IGF. It is "tomorrow" or practically so!
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:04, "Nick Ashton-Hart" 
> <nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Marilyn’s important point: we need the IGF and need to 
> support its continuation and evolution. I would add the (I hope) 
> complementary comment that the IGF also cannot expect to address everything 
> related to Internet policy globally - the WTO is the venue for trade and 
> the Internet, the HRC for human rights online, etc - but it can and should 
> be a place where these institutions come to talk about the work they are 
> doing and to help contextualise the whole scope of Internet-impacting 
> policy spaces without attempting to replace or duplicate action.
> >
> >
> >> On 15 Aug 2014, at 10:23, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I want to be optimistic about any new initiative, such as the one that 
> is now being made more visible entitled NETmundial Initiative.
> >> I will offer two thoughts.My priority is strengthening and evolving the 
> IGF as the forum that other initiatives related to IG feed into.
> >> this initiative by its nature will be grass tops. As we can help to 
> ensure that it contributes into the IGF, and that those who are now 
> suddenly aware of the IG Ecosystem and key issues step up to funding of the 
> IGF and to attending and contributing to the IGF, this is a welcomed 
> initiative.
> >> BUT, I am cautious that some will want to fix this initiative or change 
> it, or debate it at the expense of our real work and program at the IGF. As 
> this is ONE thing that is discussed, among the other critical activities, 
> and doesn't overwhelm our program, I am quite supportive.
> >> I think that is the intent of some, but it is easy to blow such an 
> initiative, which is after all, YET to be determined in its relevance and 
> outputs, out of proportion.
> >> I look forward to more information.
> >> BUT, I remain focused on the IGF which is starting on Sept 1 with Day 0 
> events, and I ask that those who are launching this initiative fully 
> respect that there is a program. I understand that Day 0 will have a couple 
> of cameo appearances.
> >> All initiatives are not created equal, nor need they be.
> >> BUT, my measurement of all are that there is mutual support of the IGF.
> >> I do have a good understanding of WEF from some previous corporate work 
> life.  It does not replace any of our more bottom engagement and initiatives.
> >> IF this initiative can recognize and support awareness of IG and the 
> value of the IGF and support how we strengthen the IGF, all the better. I 
> will remain optimistic, but quite focused on the IGF Istanbul.
> >> Let's not be diverted by too much focus on any particular initiative. 
> let's remain focused on the program of the IGF and just assume that this, 
> like other initiatives fits into and may contribute.
> >>
> >>
> >> Marilyn Cade
> >>
> >>
> >>> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:41:29 +0200
> >>> From: hhalpin at w3.org
> >>> To: nnenna75 at gmail.com; discuss at 1net.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [discuss] NetMundial Initiative - My initial thoughts (As 
> at mid August 2014)
> >>>
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>
> >>> In terms of other platforms, it would be good to get the World Social
> >>> Forum involved:
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum
> >>>
> >>> Which was historically set up as a place where civil society and
> >>> social movements meet, in contrast with the WEF. I believe the next
> >>> one is in Tunis in 2015.
> >>>
> >>> While the WSF has many of the issues (for example, professional civil
> >>> society activists and rather a lot of organizational disarray than
> >>> IGF), it is a very open forum that I think has a good deal of
> >>> grassroot social movement support and was also initiated in Brazil. It
> >>> is also not particularly focussed on Internet related issues (full
> >>> disclosure, I've been giving Internet rights related workshops there
> >>> for a few years).
> >>>
> >>> That being said, at WEF, here's what I'd like to see:
> >>>
> >>> * Netmundial Initiative's needs to strengthen the statement, in
> >>> particular demanding that net neutrality be implemented (rather than
> >>> say, removing it due to backroom politics at the last moment).
> >>>
> >>> * Develop a plan to "crowdsource" refinements of the statement and
> >>> localized versions thereof. That's a hard software problem but one
> >>> worth tackling.
> >>>
> >>> * Have Internet governance be accountable to the citizens of the
> >>> world, not via the ITU, but perhaps by doing something radical like
> >>> transforming the IGF or some other body into a oversight body for ICANN.
> >>>
> >>> * Develop an actual political programme to accomplish these goals with
> >>> a realistic timeframe and determining key points of leverage over
> >>> un-cooperative governments and corporations.
> >>>
> >>> * Realize that traditionally large-scale grassroots social movements
> >>> have historically changed the world rather than small groups of people
> >>> - - be they either the political/technical elite or jet-setting "civil
> >>> society activists" that have no actual social movement behind them. So
> >>> how can a small group of people help build a large-scale, open social
> >>> movement with clear goals?
> >>>
> >>> Sadly, there is *no* strong and co-ordinated global grassroots
> >>> movement around internet governance and internet rights today,
> >>> although the local national-level efforts in places recently like
> >>> Turkey and the Philippines have been amazing and demand our full
> >>> support, and the SOPA/ACTA protests showed that global pressure is
> >>> possible. Thus, strengthening and building a global internet rights
> >>> movement is of utmost importance.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, *any* organizational forum, regardless of place or
> >>> attendance, can be a hot-air factory with negligible political or
> >>> technical force - and this holds equally true of IGF, WEF, WSF, and
> >>> the like.
> >>>
> >>> Likewise, if *any* organizational forum can help this situation and
> >>> provide resources and co-ordination, then all power to the people. If
> >>> this comes from the WEF (which does has some Internet pioneers as
> >>> members such as Tim Berners-Lee as well as other visionaries) at this
> >>> point I'm not going to be particularly bothered.
> >>>
> >>> However, what history will judge us not by what our goals are, but by
> >>> if we accomplish them or not. That's the yardstick we should judge
> >>> Netmundial by. Generally small groups producing an initial plan and
> >>> then open consultations and movement-building is a fairly effective
> >>> methodology for organizing social movements.
> >>>
> >>>   cheers,
> >>>         harry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 08/15/2014 08:32 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
> >>>> I would like to raise thoughts that are going on in my head:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. About  the invitation list not being balanced.  I think it might
> >>>> be worth the effort asking who was invited and not who confirmed.
> >>>> There are invited folks whose names are not on that leaked list and
> >>>> there are folks whose names are on the leaked list who will not be
> >>>> there. And maybe clearly ask; Is there someone who wants an
> >>>> invite? 2. On WEF as  the platform. I do not think that NMI has
> >>>> said it is not open to other  platforms. The only other one  that
> >>>> has been raised so far is the IGF. I do not see anywhere where the
> >>>> NMI has speciically stated that it is anti-IGF. I rather see the
> >>>> contrary 3. About NMI being elitist:  It is not clear what the
> >>>> contrary will be. People who have no knowledge and no expertise? No
> >>>> understanding of IG4D issues and who were absent at NetMundial?
> >>>> Even at that, I have already seen mails on both sides; one side
> >>>> saying "these are not the real Internet guys", and  the other
> >>>> saying "it is the same old folks". 4. On Openness and transparency.
> >>>> The method being used by Fadi and ICANN in NMI is not too different
> >>>> from the one  used in NM itself, if we analyse it clearly. This
> >>>> time, it is just that the partner/platform is different. Brazil
> >>>> convened NM in their way and WEF is convening NMI their way.
> >>>> Granted, Brazil is more open and more participatory than WEF. 5. On
> >>>> the rush: As at October 2013, most of what we knew about NM was
> >>>> either rumors or unverified. The only consistent information was
> >>>> "nothing is consistent and we are are still scoping". But NM was
> >>>> pulled off. 6. On the process. I do not expect a NetMundial
> >>>> Initiative to begin to crowdsource as NetMundial did. Why? Because
> >>>> the Initiative already has the NM outcome document. 7. On
> >>>> Consultations. It is not clear whether people expect an "enhanced
> >>>> cooperation"-type of working group after NetMundial. This model
> >>>> where we spend months clarifying representation, and another series
> >>>> of months going round the issue.. only to finally  end at a
> >>>> deadlock. And future months... trying to revive the discussion. 8.
> >>>> On the IGF: We are 9 years down the "discussions" in IGF. If NM
> >>>> and IGF are to be actionable, it just means that we need another
> >>>> instance. Why? Because IGF is not action-oriented. It has not been
> >>>> and will probably not be. It is probably because of this that NM
> >>>> itself was welcome, because it put down what can be and needs to be
> >>>> DONE. 9. On ICANN's non-buttom-up strategy. This is traditional to
> >>>> ICANN. It has not changed and probably will not. ICANN does not
> >>>> seek communities that are not active.. it draws from active ones.
> >>>> The philosophy is the same here: "do you want to join in the
> >>>> action?", if yes, "Welcome". The UN  (as mirrored in the IGF) does
> >>>> not use this method. It seeks to balance representation, to be as
> >>>> inclusive as possible, to be conciliatory, to find consensus, to
> >>>> terms that will  satisfy all... 10. About Fadi. Certainly edgy,
> >>>> more action oriented, risk-taking and brave in innovation. For now,
> >>>> we cannot deny the fact that he has been one of the pillars of
> >>>> NetMundial. He kicked it off in the same way.. and everyone seems
> >>>> to be building on it.
> >>>>
> >>>> All of the above is neither FOR nor AGAINST the NetMundial
> >>>> Initiative. Having followed this process since 2000, my personal
> >>>> conclusion is that I would rather have movement forward than
> >>>> movement in circles. I'd rather begin with with a willing and
> >>>> active group and amend it on the way.
> >>>>
> >>>> NMI will certainly not satisfy all the wishes of all the
> >>>> stakeholders. I do not even see it as being one of its objectives.
> >>>> It just wants to  take the NM document and begin to do things that
> >>>> it set out.
> >>>>
> >>>> The WEF may not be the best place to host this, but it has its
> >>>> advantages. I did time at the Digital Solidarity Fund and the
> >>>> bitter experiences there make me want to believe that the WEF may
> >>>> even be a good place. Better places may exist, let us suggest them
> >>>> between now and the 6 months that follow.
> >>>>
> >>>> DISCLAIMER: My name is first on the leaked list on Civil Society.
> >>>> I received an invitation on my personal @opensource  account. I
> >>>> will not be in Geneva. First because I do not have the time and
> >>>> energy to go through the humiliating 10-weeks Schengen visa process
> >>>> and secondly because I am already booked elsewhere. My reply to the
> >>>> invite  was "I will  be absent but I will contribute"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
> >>>> list discuss at 1net.org
> >>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >>>
> >>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT7f/5AAoJEPgwUoSfMzqcJRYQAIbzALCa4c7rb7d5m9ccHa8a
> >>> J6ZZERAxUQMaEG7rpa0sLfPSV98awwLCOOTZc1X7E2aSaWCOwkw2JOG4brhbtC/p
> >>> PGBtmLG2sF6m/cbXnHPHN5CEBI44Ar+GAC4QBMmPQ66uDv7GfRFO8ogS+CoUQKSt
> >>> Vkx2/ZPtqZNXTC1BXf4ysczFDgAERc1G6IQQ94l7XsaPFQ5ccNaWVN9bUqdWVLFQ
> >>> pz+l4cMAFE5nIqVW5DUelp77iCvzV6v1Hnm9tB0bmrXM0saHb8ycRhWhUuta9ySM
> >>> j8qHq7wkAtr4mHIAbxo5mEzsQgHfEDMKoIR1EuOcAxwMqwOB9PFCT02YwRoMOSBa
> >>> 1NUoXXT8R+aGClh41ZQlOLAPyrVJiAvUzKqnqdd4rUD8m9EEz0VCr10wHzeRL7S+
> >>> i/R4pATQlRo7sRYMs5bv/0YQ9KDm4j4zURPt5JKEJYsdFIpEi2e4DowM6KyWII7p
> >>> gwapMD8Hw+WKXLraxMA3z3pAz3h6yD81SdG+vkj8VLZfil1BlSPt/WdEhAQmYo7b
> >>> gZh8HLwQimf39JFP7PAn5TJbnZ7aoF+7dxUCPvTtFWCoMwVZ9e1+PVGPs/bkhuoq
> >>> Go2KNBfcT/rCZ4Mbvychokd6+NCggWYS7zEjbRxiTgKc9/y/KFQs1NZ6Edvi9bgz
> >>> 1zqFXLzbfwcfl67BpHuj
> >>> =58GX
> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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/20140821/7a09faa7/attachment-0001.html>