[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