[discuss] NetMundial Initiative

Sat Aug 23 19:48:01 UTC 2014

It appears to me that many of the people involved in creating and planning NETMundial are only tangentially connected to the so-called NETMundial initiative. Is this perception correct? 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
> Of Raul Echeberria
> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 2:27 PM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: 1Net Discuss
> Subject: Re: [discuss] NetMundial Initiative
> 
> 
> Hi everybody.
> 
> I think our main objective should remain being the strengthening of the IGF.
> The Netmundial Initiative is an important thing that it is happening right now,and
> it deserves our attention, but it shouldn't constitute the central point of the iGF
> in a few days.
> 
> Of course we have to follow the Net Mundial Initiative and ensure that if some
> processes are implemented, those are transparent, bottom up and open to all
> stakeholders. The IGF is the standard and so, we shouldn't be satisfied with the
> implementation of anything with less guaranties and participation opportunities
> than the IGF itself.
> 
> The IGF is in my view the most innovative experience in international
> governance (not only in Internet governance) and we are very fortunate to be
> part of this historical moment. We can't loose the opportunity of continue
> evolving it and improving it. If other processes help to that objective, they are
> very very welcome, but let's be careful to not create distractive or competing
> things. It depends on all of us.
> 
> I look forward to seeing more information about the plans for NMI. The
> announcement mentions a global meeting next year. Remember that IGF 2015 in
> Brazil is expected to be a key meeting where we could evaluate the 10 years of
> IGF. And to be honest I can't imagine a better place for evaluating whether the
> IGF is adopting or not the Netmundial recommendations.
> 
> 
> I'm always positive and always willing to support new initiatives if they
> contribute to improve Internet, Internet governance and Internet as a platform
> for promoting social, human and economic development of people worldwide.
> 
> See you in Istanbul.
> 
> 
> Raúl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> El 23/08/2014, a las 04:39, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> > On Aug 22, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed, in response to Bill, I was not suggesting that the WEF would take
> over the role the IGF has played for the past ten years.  My fear is that, as
> Jeremy indicated, the IGF, despite all the rhetoric, in some quarters has been
> declared a dead parrot (in Pythonesque terms).
> >
> > There are always some quarters declaring something.   Meanwhile, there are a
> variety of discussions taking place in Istanbul about strengthening the IGF.  We
> will explore the issues at the Day 0 event and in several main sessions,
> particularly the one on the ecosystem and strengthening the IGF.   How to do it
> is a debate that's been unfolding in multiple venues, including the MAG.  The
> Brazilians have made plain they would like to see a strengthened process toward
> the 2015 meeting.
> >
> >> There is a risk in any new stakeholder gathering, that new movement will
> take place with new ideas, and exactly the scenario that Wolfgang describes
> could start to play itself out, in the new power structure forming at the WEF.
> >
> > Again, the WEF is providing a platform for six months to launch a process with
> hopefully support outside the usual IG circles, e.g. heads of state, ministries of
> finance, trade, etc, as well as businesses and CSOs not historically engaged in IG.
> If it works, in six months a new and inclusive process independent of the WEF
> will be stood up.  At most, WEF would add IG sessions to its annual conference
> programs at Davos.  How, concretely, would this constitute a new power
> structure that determines anything?
> >
> >> Every assembly is a new power structure....with new risks, particularly for a
> movement as weak as the IGF, that certainly appears to be past pining for the
> fiords....
> >> Apologies to those unfamiliar with the dead parrot sketch, it is available on
> utube.  Apologies also to those who think the IGF is alive and well...while I still
> profess profound ignorance of the inner workings of the IGF, I am in the camp
> that believes wishing will not make it so, we need money, staff, a structure,
> accountability, and an action plan, otherwise this is just busy work for civil
> society. I think we can get some of this at the upcoming IGF, as Marilyn C has
> indicated....and I would repeat.....please pass the hat while you are at WEF.  If
> that is Fadi's plan, I think it is a capital idea.
> >
> > There will be an effort to encourage founding partners to commit political and
> perhaps financial support for the above, yes.
> >
> >> Speaking of capitals, though, which governments are going to the August
> 28th meeting, do we know?
> >
> > Yes, this and other information is all on the WEF site.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >>
> >> On 2014-08-22, 11:44, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> >>> My understanding is that NMI is aimed to strengthen the IGF. The IGF needs
> strong supporters. And it is good that next to the dozens of (old and new) IGF
> supporters we have now also the WEF as a supporter. If the renewal of the IGF is
> pulled into the (intergovernmental) WSIS 10+ process the risk is high that the IGF
> could enter troubled waters. There are proposals by some UN member states, to
> bring IGF and the WSIS Forum under one umbrella (to save costs and resources).
> The WSIS 10+ process and its negotiations in New York will be done by
> governments only.
> >>>
> >>> Istanbul and the NMI process should be used to find out how the IGF could
> become more sustainable, stable, better financed, better staffed and how we
> can move to a process which generates concrete output in a multistakeholder
> environment where stakeholders "share" decision making (as proposed by the
> Tunis Agenda). There are ideas for concrete output: Best practice guidelines for
> various issues, IG observatory, IG clearinghouse, IG watchdog etc.
> >>> However the NMI (as the IGF) has to proof that they are real
> multistakeholder processes (and not one- or two-stakeholder processes). With
> other words, it needs a strong and engaged civil society and academic
> community to counterbalance (intended or unintended) domination or capture
> by other stakeholder groups. As Bill says reading the NMI FAQ is useful. The door
> is open. What it needs is good ideas, reasonable actions and active engagement
> in the exploratory phase. And then lets see what we have end of February 2015.
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> I don't think there is any intention or plausible scenario for the NMI to
> replace the IGF.
> >>>
> >>> The FAQ is worth reading.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 21, 2014, at 8:03 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I don't know Jeremy, I don't think you are being cynical enough; I agree
> with your blog.  Where oh where is civil society on the WEF website?  I confess
> little or no expertise on the IGF, having last attended in person in 2006....but
> how does anyone think the IGF is going to get this issue back?  If civil society is
> prepared to admit that IGF is the walking dead, what does anyone realistically
> think government and industry are likely to say?
> >>>> Personally, I don't think a fair bargain has been struck for the first ten years
> of IGF.  No organization can survive with almost no funds, no staff, and no
> means off assisting its volunteers to attend and build initiatives.  This is what we
> need to push for. That and getting the WEC to restrict its activities to fundraising
> among its members, to fund IGF.
> >>>> Cheers Stephanie Perrin
> >>>> On 14-08-21 1:30 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>> On 21/08/2014 10:18 am, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>>>> Web site updated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance
> >>>>> Before seeing this I blogged with my personal thoughts about the
> >>>>> Initiative at
> >>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/the-netmundial-initiative-exp
> >>>>> osed, being my usual cranky self.  Having now read the website
> >>>>> update, I wouldn't change much in what I had written, but I am
> >>>>> pleased to read that "there will be a six month period of
> >>>>> consultations with a broad range of stakeholders and experts
> >>>>> regarding whether and how to establish a dedicated organizational
> >>>>> structure to support these activities going forward, whether or
> >>>>> not connected to the Forum."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>> ***********************************************
> >>> William J. Drake
> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer
> >>>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ  University of Zurich,
> >>> Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,  ICANN,
> >>> www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
> >>> (lists),  www.williamdrake.org
> >>> ***********************************************
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > ***********************************************
> > William J. Drake
> > International Fellow & Lecturer
> >  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> >  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> >  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
> >  www.williamdrake.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