[discuss] NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Nov 24 09:39:50 UTC 2014

Hartmut and colleagues:

Thank you for your note.  As someone who participated in the actual Net 
Mundial event, including the planning and drafting, there is no question 
that Brazil understands what multistakeholder means and that it must be 
bottom up.

Net Mundial faced some growing pains early on including lack of timely 
information and questions of transparency in mission, participation and 
process which created some concerns. Over time while some process issues 
were still at issue (how to determine when consensus was reached and how 
to assure all viewpoints were fairly factored in drafting), the 
consultative process was seen to be both real and effective across 
stakeholder groups.  The actual meeting and final drafting process 
resulted in documents that were able to gain broad support.  I agree 
that Net Mundial was a successful event that exceeded its expectations 
at the outset of the process in many ways because of the willingness and 
stamina of the Brazilian organizing team to interact frankly, directly 
and consistently across all stakeholder groups.

If we contrast the Net Mundial planning and organization with NMI, the 
comparison to date is much less flattering.  The initial launch of NMI 
may have been seen to be plagued by some of the same issues as the 
initial launch of Net Mundial: lack of information, transparency and 
process at the outset; though I would argue, that these problems in NMI 
were more acute and that there was much less inclusion in all phases of 
its planning.  Where Net Mundial faced criticism on these issues as it 
developed, it took those comments on board and worked with stakeholders 
to develop appropriate solutions.  NMI at its launch was greeted with 
substantial criticism and suspicion.  Types of outcomes and planning had 
been decided in advance with no meaningful consultation among 
stakeholders.  As I have noted in previous posts, listing company CEOs 
on an invitation does not mean there had been meaningful consultation 
with business stakeholders.  After the less than resounding reception 
for NMI there was a statement that gave all of us hope.  Everything was 
back on the table and NMI would engage in an inclusive bottom up period 
of consultation for 6 months in order to reconsider direction and 
process and to provide the inclusion and transparency that had been lacking.

At the IGF, envoys of NMI did speak to many stakeholders.  There was 
almost a daily conceptual reinvention of NMI, which was far from helpful 
as NMI meant whatever the ideas were of last conversation someone had 
about it.  After the IGF, a period of radio silence ensued.  At that 
point Brazil seems to have become more directly involved in the 
process.  While the tone of the ensuing conceptual model of NMI is now 
more inclusive, the process has remained opaque at best.  The six months 
of bottom up multistakeholder consultation has not occurred in any 
meaningful fashion.  The objectives of NMI have been set without the 
benefit of true multistakeholder consultation, and to the extent input 
was taken on board it was in a black box process where no one can 
understand how or why decisions are taken. What was the breadth of 
options considered; why were these chosen and how? Some objectives to 
hearken back to the original launch objectives creating questions of 
whether any input was really taken on board.   The current organization 
and articulation of the process does not really provide anywhere near 
enough information on how the breadth of participation and inclusion 
will be accommodated. While the new FAQ and your e-mail go part ways to 
helping start clarifications,  NMI needs to understand that it must 
resolve a substantial trust deficit.  To date it has not done so.  It 
also has not sufficiently clarified how it will be complementary to and 
supportive of the IGF as the  forum that enables true stakeholder 
discussion that helps us progress towards better understanding and  
consensus and assemble practical solutions like compendia of best 
practices and other tools of capacity building...

I appreciate the work all of you did to help make Net Mundial a true 
multistakeholder event, as well as the heartfelt sentiment of your 
letter, but NMI has significant work left to do before it can regain the 
trust of the communities that it hopes to include.

In light of the continuing issues and questions that are being raised by 
a number of communities, including the business community, I question 
whether an early December organizational deadline is advisable or feasible.

Best Regards,


On 11/22/2014 1:52 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote:
> To all of you directly and indirectly involved with the lively debate 
> that has been observed within the Internet governance circles 
> surrounding the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), would like to clarify the 
> following:
> 1)There are two main reasons for CGI.br to embark on the NETmundial 
> Initiative.
> a) CGI.br is moved by a strong, crystal-clear and well known 
> commitment to the preservation, the promotion and the implementation 
> of the principles and the roadmap that were adopted in São Paulo 
> during the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet 
> Governance - NETmundial. As long as CGI.br is involved in any 
> activity, process or institution related to the global governance of 
> the Internet, there will be a group of 21 board members 
> representatives of the broader Internet community in Brazil, assisted 
> by a deeply committed Secretariat, working for the promotion of the 
> achievements of the NETmundial meeting earlier this year.Instead of 
> watching from a distant perspective the different processes and 
> environments that comprise the complex distributed IG ecosystem, 
> CGI.br members have been actively engaged with a myriad of other 
> stakeholders and the community as a whole in the different spaces 
> within which Internet governance is dealt with. CGI.br is committed to 
> raise a voice whenever there can by any unjustified reversion on the 
> thresholds set by NETmundial for Internet governance, namely: 
> collaboration, openness, transparency, and multistakeholderism by 
> default.
> b) Brazil is to host the 2015 IGF. CGI.br is closely working with the 
> Brazilian government in order to assure that the 10th edition of the 
> IGF yields all the results that were normatively set by the community 
> in 2014 in different occasions: the renewal of its mandate in the UNGA 
> later this year; the strengthening of its role as the focal point for 
> the community; the assurance of funding sources, and the harmonization 
> of activities of the IGF with the different initiatives that are 
> sprouting (nationally, regionally, and globally) since the Community 
> issued the NETmundial Statement.
> 2) From its inception, CGI.br has been willing to dialogue and of work 
> together with every single member of the Community who is willing to 
> promote, reflect upon, strengthen, and enhance multistakeholderism. 
> The NMI is one among those efforts and can contribute to those goals 
> by publicizing ideas and connecting people from all over the world 
> using a single Web platform. Anything additional to the development 
> and the maintenance of the platform shall be a result of the 
> Initiative after it is set up. Bearing that in mind, on behalf of all 
> of the members of the Board of CGI.br, we would like to invite all 
> stakeholders to join the effort of building NMI based on the spirit 
> and the aspirations of the community in a collaborative manner.
> 3) The NETmundial Initiative is in its formation. The whole 
> institutionalization of NMI shall be community-driven. That is why the 
> Transitional Council, as soon as it got a request from the Civil 
> Society Coordination Group (CSCG),  accepted to work together with the 
> CSCG to come up with a solution for defining Civil Society names for 
> the NMI Council by consensus and fully respecting the indications of 
> Civil Society. It is important to say that CGI.br is pretty confident 
> that if any other group of stakeholders approach the Transition 
> Council with similar solutions to strengthen the process, the Council 
> will be willingly open to recognize and implement them as a way of 
> putting the community at the center of the process of shaping the 
> ulterior composition of the NMI Council.
> Finally, let us reaffirm that CGI.br would never agree with top-down, 
> closed decision-making processes that could possibly undermine its 
> legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. It is up for 
> the community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and 
> useful for the advancement of IG in full respects of the principles 
> enshrined in the NETmundial declaration.
> Best regards,
> Virgílio Almeida
> Coordinator of the Board of the CGI.br - Representative nominated by 
> the Federal Government
> Demi Getschko
> Member of the Board of CGI.br, nominated as Internet Expert
> Carlos A. Afonso
> Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the Third Sector
> Flávio Wagner
> Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the scientific and 
> technological community and Selected member for the MAG/IGF 2015
> Eduardo Parajo
> Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the business sector - 
> Internet access and content providers
> Hartmut Glaser
> Executive Secretary of the Board of the CGI.br
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list