[discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Thu May 1 14:17:32 UTC 2014


I agree with Markus' comments.  NETmundial identified a number of issues the IGF could pick-up.  Net neutrality: there's already an active IGF dynamic coalition working on network neutrality <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamic-coalitions/1330-dc-on-network-neutrality>.  It has produced substantive work.  A starting point for a working group perhaps.

Another other obvious issue, quoting the relevant section of the NETmundial document:

"Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance, including the meaning and application of equal footing."

Contentious, but really needs thought and sharing of ideas.  

There was a very good session at last year's IGF in Bali "Building Bridges-The Role of Governments in Multistakeholder Cooperation", which itself was a response to an ITU opinion on the Role of Governments proposed by the Government of Brazil at the World Telecommunications Policy Forum (WTPF).  The IGF session was a very positive discussion of the role of governments, and began to move beyond that single stakeholder to the role of other's when the three hours was up.  Really was crying out for the discussion to continue, but the IGF was at that time unable to help.  I think we've moved on a bit now, the idea of inter-sessional IGF activities is more acceptable to most, we have another global multi-stakeholer process making suggestions for work the IGF might adopt, UN DESA seems amiable to the idea.  

We might encourage the IGF MAG to find time on the agenda for sessions on roles and responsibilities and on net neutrality, and to consider how to allow for inter-sessional work after Istanbul (the MAG to issue a call for proposals on the possible modalities of inter-sessional work? So there's agreement on how, before rushing too far ahead.)

Adam



On Apr 30, 2014, at 11:33 PM, Markus Kummer wrote:

> I also see a strong correlation, if not a cross-fertilization, between the
> IGF and NETmundial. The IGF paved the way for NETmundial and NETmundial is
> now demonstrating how to reach a rough consensus in a multistakeholder
> setting. Having said that, NETmundial has also reminded us that the nature
> of the dialogue changes, if there is pressure to produce an outcome
> document.
> 
> The IGF may be in a position to come to closure on some issues, but not on
> others. Therefore, a hybrid format may be the best way forward, providing
> a space for free-ranging dialogue while at the same time aiming to seek
> closure on some issues that are sufficiently mature to allow for a rough
> consensus. 
> 
> ISOC recognized that the IGF after Bali was ready to take the next step
> towards more tangible outputs. The paper we submitted as an input into the
> February consultation suggests seeking inspiration from the IETF and
> moving towards producing outputs for voluntary adoption. We proposed
> reviving best practices sessions on issues where we know that solutions
> exist, such as spam or IXPs. The outcome of the sessions could be
> documented best practices on these issues. It is my understanding that
> this is now under discussion by the MAG.
> 
> Other issues will continue to be issues for debate. Here again, NETmundial
> has identified one issue that needs further discussion: net neutrality.
> The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement provides a helpful framing for
> this debate ("how to enable freedom of expression, competition, consumer
> choice, meaningful transparency and appropriate network management"). This
> should foster an interesting debate in Istanbul!
> 
> 
> Markus 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org <discuss-bounces at 1net.org> on behalf of
> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:09 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> I will be observing remotely and look forward to seeing how you all
> handle the issues.  As several of us have indicated, this is critical in
> considerations for IGF's future.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 29-Apr-14 17:56, Janis Karklins wrote:
>> Milton, Jeanette, Avri, Giacomo, Raul, Izumi, Jeremi, all
>> 
>> I hear you and promise that the MAG during the open consultations and
>> its own meeting in Paris 19/21 May will discuss lessons from NetMundial
>> and will suggest the best possible agenda and tangible outputs of the
>> IGF. We will take into account points of view of all stakeholder groups.
>> The Report of the CSTD WG on improvements of the IGFwill be guiding us
>> in a same way as impressions and energy of the NetMundial.
>> I fully share the desire to use the momentum that has been created by
>> the NetMundial to improve the IGF. Pls join the MAG at the open
>> consultations that we can create good dynamics in discussions and take
>> well informed decisions.
>> 
>> JK
>> 
>> PS: Milton, sorry that I didn't hear your intervention at the "way
>> forward" session (as I was working on the Statement's text alongside
>> with many others), but I will read the transcript. JK
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>>    Janis:
>>    I would strongly endorse Jeanette's comments. When I spoke at the
>>    "way forward" panel on the last day, several CS activists begged me
>>    to endorse the "strengthen IGF" theme, and by "strengthen" they
>>    meant significant changes, including outcome documents. Others
>>    expressed their support for a continuation of Netmundial because of
>>    their belief that IGF, despite its importance as an outlet for ideas
>>    and workshops, was not capable of the kind of constructive changes
>>    that would make it the inheritor of the positive momentum of
>>    Netmundial. Even before your response, I leaned toward the latter
>>    view. Now, I must say that unless IGF makes significant moves to
>>    learn from and capitalize on the experience of Netmundial it will
>>    gradually lose credibility, and participation, including mine.
>> 
>>    --MM
>> 
>>    -----Original Message-----
>>    From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>
>>    [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org <mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org>]
>>    On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>    Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 7:31 AM
>>    To: discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>; karklinsj at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com>
>>    Subject: Re: [discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR
>> PRINTING
>> 
>>    Dear Janis,
>> 
>>    to be honest, I was hoping for a more encouraging response. In
>>    addition to an enormous amount of secretarial capacity and
>>    committment, I thought there was a lot of good will to explore new
>>    precedures and to produce a new type of collective outcome.
>>    Moreover, many participants assessed the dynamics of netmundial
>>    against the background of the IGF asking themselves how specific
>>    elements of netmundial could be imported into the IGF in order to
>>    revive and improve the latter.
>> 
>>    You are of course right that the overall context, aims and purposes
>>    of both meetings differ. It is also true that the netmundial process
>>    was far from being perfect. Still, in my view we should now ask
>>    ourselves what can be learned from netmundial with a view to
>>    improving the IGF and which of such improvements could already be
>>    implemented this year.
>> 
>> 
>>    The call for IGF outcomes is everything but new. Several years ago
>>    towards the end of its first term, the MAG discussed a new meeting
>>    format for specific topics that had been on the agenda for various
>>    years and had cleary exhausted the potential insights to be gained
>>    from additional IGF workshops. Child pornography was mentioned as an
>>    example.
>>      The idea as I recall it was, to assemble the various experts,
>>    stakeholders and views on the issue and get them to agree on a
>>    limited number of factual problem statements and, if possible,
>>    recommendations.
>>    We were not able to explore this approach because one stakeholder
>>    group obviously got cold feet and lobbied against it. Now might be
>>    the time to give this a second try.
>> 
>>    Yes, such an approach would need preparation. A draft statement
>>    should be prepared by the relevant actors in advance of the meeting
>>    so that everybody knows what is at stake and has a chance to form an
>>    opinion on the issue at stake. It seems still early enough to set in
>>    motion such an experiment for one specific topic.
>> 
>>    In my view, the IGF needs to prove that it can reform itself. More
>>    funding will come along if it does so.
>> 
>>    jeanette
>> 
>>    Am 27.04.14 08:04, schrieb karklinsj at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com>:
>>> Avri,
>>> 
>>> I would like to comment on your ³Šit is time to IGF MAG to through
>> off
>>> its self imposed limitations Š.²
>>> Agreeing that IGF needs to find a way to demonstrate more tangible
>>> outcome of its work, I doubt that NetMundial experience will be
>>> applied in 2014/2015 editions. There are several reasons for that:
>>> 
>>>  *
>>>    NetMundial was focused on 2 issues - IGF is broad ranging
>>    discussion
>>>  *
>>>    Purpose/aim of both meetings were different
>>>  *
>>>    Drafting of the Final statement started well in advance of
>>    NetMundial
>>>  *
>>>    NetMundial had far more resources in terms of Secretarial
>> support
>>>    (HL Committee, Bureau)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That said, I hope that IGF will be able to demonstrate that things
>>> happen as a result of IGF elsewhere. You know that I launched a
>> call
>>> for a voluntary information submission:
>>> 
>>> /The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on
>> the
>>> Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform on
>>> Internet governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to
>>> provide a platform for information exchange, identify emerging
>>> challenges and possible solutions to addressing them, provide
>> capacity
>>> building, identify and disseminate best practices and forge
>>> partnerships for concrete actions./
>>> 
>>> /Over the past few years, some sceptics of the IGF have suggested
>> that
>>> no actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at the
>> IGF -
>>> that it is just a ³talk shop²./
>>> 
>>> /In order to dissipate those doubts about the ³action orientation²
>> of
>>> the IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete actions
>> and
>>> decisions that have been taken by different stakeholders as a
>> result
>>> of the engagement and discussions of Internet related issues at the
>>> various IGFs (international, regional or national)./
>>> 
>>> /In this respect, I would like to invite all of those organizations
>>> and institutions that would be willing to share information, *on a
>>> voluntary basis*, about concrete decisions or actions that have
>> been
>>> taken as a result of engagement during the current mandate of the
>> IGF
>>> the 2011,
>>> 2012 and 2013 IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGF
>>> Secretariat (/_/[email protected]//intgovforum.org/_
>>    <http://intgovforum.org/_>
>>> <mailto:discussion_questions at intgovforum.org
>>    <mailto:discussion_questions at intgovforum.org>>/) by 30 June 2014. The
>>> Secretariat will compile all information received and will present
>> a
>>> synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF./
>>> 
>>> /Thank you for your participation/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> /Janis Karklins/
>>> 
>>> /Interim Chair of the MAG/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IGF Secretariat will compile all submissions and I intend
>> present
>>> them at the opening of Istanbul IGF meeting. I hope that report
>> will
>>> dissipate, at least partially, perception that IGF is merely a
>>    talk-shop.
>>> With greetings from sunny and warm Riga JK
>>> 
>>> Sent from Surface
>>> 
>>> *From:* Avri Doria <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 26, 2014 10:59 PM
>>> *To:* discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>    <mailto:discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>>,
>>> internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
>>    <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
>>    <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
>>    <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>>
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> And beyond exegesis and spin on the document we should try to
>> import
>>> some of those techniques into the IGF so that it can also learn
>> how to
>>> produce some outcomes, e.g. inputs from IGF to other Ig
>> organizations.
>>> 
>>> Following the lead of NetMundial, it is time for the IGF MAG to
>> throw
>>> off its self imposed limitation of being merely a program
>> committee so
>>> it can make recommendations to the UNSG on how to turn the IGF
>> into an
>>> organization that can actually produce results.  While it is true
>> that
>>> the IGF has achieved a little just by existing, at this point if it
>>> wants to remain viable it needs to move beyond its infancy and
>> become
>>> a useful organization.
>>> 
>>> In addition to some of the important work done by NetMundial in
>>> bridging the gap between the Internet and Human Rights and opening
>> the
>>> door to discussions on revising the government defined roles and
>>> responsibilities of the actors in the Internet ecosystem from
>> 2003, it
>>> has shown us that it is possible for a multistakeholder
>> organization
>>> to produce outcomes.  It is now time for the IGF to figure out how
>> to
>>> do the same.
>>> 
>>> Additionally, the NetMundial has sent some tasks the IGF's way.  I
>>> look forward to work on such issues as Net Neutrality at IGF2014.
>>> 
>>> The mission of the IGF has been given a real push by NetMundial, I
>>> hope we don't waste the opportunity.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 26-Apr-14 16:36, John Curran wrote:
>>>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Marilyn Cade
>>    <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com
>>    <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I think the opportunity ahead is how to further examine what
>> the
>>>>> "statement of Sao Paolo" says and how to continue work,
>> especially
>>> at  >> IGF,  but not only there.
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> /John
>>>> 
>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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




More information about the discuss mailing list