[discuss] NetMundial Initiative

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Mon Aug 25 21:19:47 UTC 2014

I am very curious as to what the precise funding is for the NMI 
initiative at the WEF.  Does anyone know?
Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-08-15, 2:14, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
> I woke up early this morning and read Anne Jellema (CEO of Web 
> Foundation)'s blog post. She titled it "Fall of Internet Governance?" 
> <%20https://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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>     As being one of invited to the launch event of
>>>>>>>     theWEFinitiative 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 <http://www/>.weforum.org/communities.
>>>>>>>     Organizationally theWEFis membership organization where big
>>>>>>>     multinationals from all over the world are widely
>>>>>>>     represented. TheWEFinvites 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 theIGFas 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 2014IGFmeeting and there will be ample
>>>>>>>     opportunity for theIGcommunity 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
>>>>>>>     <mailto: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
>>>>>>>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://eff.org/>
>>>>>>>             >jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > Tel:415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>>>>>             <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Jordan Carter
>>>>>>>             <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>>>>>             <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > --
>>>>>>>             > --
>>>>>>>             > Jordan Carter
>>>>>>>             > Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             >+64-21-442-649
>>>>>>>             <tel:%2B64-21-442-649>|jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>>>>>             <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>>>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>             > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>             > 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 <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
>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>     `````````````````````````````````
>>>>>     anriette esterhuysen
>>>>>     executive director
>>>>>     association for progressive communications
>>>>>     po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>>>>>     anriette at apc.org  <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>>>>>     www.apc.org  <http://www.apc.org/>
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140825/36ad362e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list