<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Chris:<br>
<br>
I appreciate the post, as well as the clarification of NMI's
supporting and complementary role to IGF; that has not been made
sufficiently clear in the run up to this meeting. More information,
like your recent post, is needed about how this initiative is
inclusive in meaningful participation beyond the guest list and how
its procedures reflect transparency in operation. <br>
<br>
I did however also want us to consider how complementary roles works
on a going forward basis. If the IGF has been too much of a pure
talk shop, it has begun to morph into a laboratory. Capacity
building, emerging practices and enhanced, bi-directional knowledge
transfer are the experiments and processes we are working on. It
would be good for NMI to keep those moving goalposts in sight to
assure that the support of and complementarity to IGF are maintained
in its developing functions and needless duplication is avoided.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best-<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/19/2014 3:11 PM, Chris Disspain
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CB643186-4113-4BC8-B826-F6F4707E4960@auda.org.au"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color:
rgb(102, 102, 102);">FYI…
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-initiative-for-action">https://www.icann.org/news/blog/an-initiative-for-action</a><br>
<div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb; min-height: 16.0px}
</style>
<p class="p1"><br>
</p>
<p class="p1"><br>
</p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br>
</p>
<p class="p2">Chris</p>
</div>
<br>
<div style="">
<div>On 16 Aug 2014, at 05:35 , Marilyn Cade
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com"><marilynscade@hotmail.com></a> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div dir="auto">
<div><br>
Well, 1NET is the space to watch. :-0</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sent from my iPad</div>
<div><br>
On Aug 15, 2014, at 2:16 AM, "Nnenna Nwakanma" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com">nnenna75@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>I woke up early this morning and read Anne
Jellema (CEO of Web Foundation)'s blog post.
She titled it <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://webfoundation.org/2014/08/the-fall-of-internet-governance/">"Fall
of Internet Governance?"</a><br>
<br>
</div>
I found it interesting, especially from the
civil society point of view.<br>
<br>
Nnenna<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at
5:13 AM, Chip Sharp (chsharp) <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:chsharp@cisco.com"
target="_blank">chsharp@cisco.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Nick, all,</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div>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.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Chip</div>
</font></span>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div><br>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:33 PM, "Nick
Ashton-Hart" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nashton@internet-ecosystem.org"
target="_blank">nashton@internet-ecosystem.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Dear Joe and all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards Nick</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On 14 Aug 2014, at 12:52,
joseph alhadeff <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com"
target="_blank">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
style="font-family:DroidSans;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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<span> </span><b><i>the</i></b><span> </span>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.<br>
<br>
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. <span> </span><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
n 8/14/2014 11:10 AM,
Stephanie Perrin wrote
<blockquote type="cite">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.<br>
Best wishes.<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div>On 14-08-14 8:00
AM, Anriette
Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><font
size="+1"><font
size="+1">Dear all<br>
<br>
Writing this in my
personal capacity.
My organisation,
the Association
for Progressive
Communications,
has not yet
finalised its
reaction to this
discussion.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
My reasons are
(mostly) as
follows:<br>
<br>
<b>1) Choice of
'location' in
the context of
power and
politics in
multi-stakeholder
internet
governance</b><br>
<br>
Most of us
consider the
NETmundial a
success and the
NETmundial
statement a
strong, positive
document that
avoids the traps
of 'cheap'
consensus.<span> </span><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>2) What do we
really need to</b><b>operationalise
and consolidate
the NETmundial
outcomes?<span> </span><br>
<br>
</b>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).<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
I don't think so. <span> </span><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<span> </span><br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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). <span> </span><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>3) NETmundial<span> </span></b><b>Initiative
and the IGF and
the broader
internet
community</b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <span> </span><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<span> </span><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Anriette</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div>On 14/08/2014
09:52, Chris
Disspain wrote:m<br>
</div>
<blockquote
type="cite">
<span
style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)">
<blockquote
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">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 <span>IGF</span> as
a
multi-stakeholder
discussion
platform by
enlarging
participation
in its work of
those
companies and
governments
that haven't
been involved
until kn</div>
</blockquote>
<div>(l<br>
</div>
Yes, that is also
my understanding.
A particular
emphasis was made
of supporting the
IGF but, I guess,
time will tell.<br>
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div
style="margin:0px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(148,67,251)">Cheers,
wha<br>
</div>
<div
style="margin:0px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(148,67,251);min-height:16px"> <br>
</div>
<div
style="margin:0px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(148,67,251)">Chri<span> </span><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 14 Aug
2014, at 17:39
, Janis
Karklins <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com" target="_blank">karklinsj@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>As being
one of invited
to the launch
event of the<span> </span><span
style="background-color:yellow;background-repeat:initial
initial"><span>WEF</span></span><span> </span>initiative
I would like
to share
information
that I
possess.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The World
Economic Forum
is an
international
institution
committed to
improving the
state of the
world through
public-private
cooperation
(statement on
the website).<span> </span><span>WEF</span>communities
are various
and more can
be seen at<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www/" target="_blank">http://www</a>.<span>weforum</span>.org/communities.
Organizationally
the<span> </span><span>WEF</span>is
membership
organization
where big
multinationals
from all over
the world are
widely
represented.
The<span> </span><span>WEF</span><span> </span>invites
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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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<span> </span><span>IGF</span><span> </span>as
a
multi-stakeholder
discussion
platform by
enlarging
participation
in its work of
those
companies and
governments
that haven't
been involved
until know.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I know
that Alan
Markus intends
to present and
discuss the
initiative at
the 2014<span> </span><span>IGF</span><span> </span>meeting
and there will
be ample
opportunity
for the<span> </span><span>IG</span><span> </span>community
to clarify
details.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hope
that this
information is
useful.</div>
<div><span>JK</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div
class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div
class="gmail_quote">On
Thu, Aug 14,
2014 at 10:11
AM, Joana
Varon<span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com"
target="_blank">joana@varonferraz.com</a>></span><span> </span>wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><b>Current
status of IG
debate:</b><span> </span>we
need leaks to
know what is
going on!
Pretty bad for
a start.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>@jordan
carter: "<span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.33px">why a noted
business
centred forum
is the place
to launch an
Internet
governance
initiative?" -
a question to
be echoed
indeed.</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.33px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font
face="arial,
sans-serif">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?!</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>@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. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>hoping
for the best,
though looking
at... the
worst?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>regards</div>
<span><font
color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>joana</div>
</font></span>
<div><br>
-- <br>
-- <br>
<br>
Joana Varon
Ferraz<br>
@joana_varon<br>
PGP 0x016B8E73<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div
class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div
class="gmail_quote">On
Thu, Aug 14,
2014 at 1:30
AM, Seth
Johnson<span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com"
target="_blank">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>></span><span> </span>wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">More
that the IGF
phase wasn't
going to work.
IGF has
always been in<br>
a tough spot,
not so much
fumbling the
ball -- as if
that's
anything<br>
other than an
endemic
feature of any
organization
of a similar<br>
institutional
nature -- but
not empowered
and pining for
standing.<br>
But Netmundial
wasn't
executed well
in that regard
(they
announced<br>
sponsorship of
IGF, but they
also weren't
quite able to
make things<br>
stick), so
they need to
patch he
information
society
process up by
a<br>
more blunt
move that
steps past IGF
rather than
going through
a<br>
process of
engaging folks
in issues via
IGF as per
plan. I think<br>
they're
figuring
they'll be
able to just
brazen it out.<br>
<div><br>
<br>
On Wed, Aug
13, 2014 at
10:39 PM,
Jeremy Malcolm
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
> I think
it's more the
case that the
IGF has so
badly fumbled
the ball that<br>
> it falls
to someone -
anyone - else
to pick it up.
But that is
not to<br>
> discount
the valid
criticisms
that others
have expressed
and that I
agree<br>
> with.<br>
><br>
>
Disclaimer:
I'm a member
of the evil
cabal.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Jeremy
Malcolm<br>
> Senior
Global Policy
Analyst<br>
>
Electronic
Frontier
Foundation<br>
><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://eff.org/" target="_blank">https://eff.org</a><br>
><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br>
><br>
> Tel:<span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161"
value="+14154369333"
target="_blank">415.436.9333 ext 161</a><br>
><br>
> ::
Defending Your
Rights in the
Digital World
::<br>
><br>
> On Aug
13, 2014, at
6:57 PM,
Jordan Carter
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Can
someone
explain why a
noted business
centred forum
is the place
to<br>
> launch an
Internet
governance
initiative?<br>
><br>
> I
genuinely
don't
understand
that.<br>
><br>
> I thought
the whole
lesson of
netmundial was
that genuine
multi
stakeholder<br>
>
approaches
work well, not
that it was a
nice
experiment to
be ignored.<br>
><br>
> It would
be helpful if
those who rule
us, as it
were, would
rapidly
disclose<br>
> some
authoritative
information.<br>
><br>
> Jordan<br>
><br>
> On
Thursday, 14
August 2014,
Stephen
Farrell <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie"
target="_blank">stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Gotta
say... seems
like elitist
nonsense to me
having looked<br>
>> at
the invite
list and other
docs. The
elitist part
should be<br>
>>
obvious. The
nonsense part
is due to
almost none
of the list<br>
>> of
invitees being
known for
knowing about
the Internet.
It<br>
>> seems
much more an
elite than an
Internet-savvy
list of folks<br>
>> being
asked to form
a new cabal.
That said,
cabals aren't
all<br>
>> bad,
and I've no
reason to
think very
badly of this
particular<br>
>>
subset of the
elite and its
I guess just
more
meaningless
policy<br>
>> stuff
so I don't
need to care
very much.<br>
>><br>
>> That
said, it seems
a pity for
this to be the
next step
after<br>
>> the
Brazil gig
which seemed
relatively
open.<br>
>><br>
>> S.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On
14/08/14
02:36, William
Drake wrote:<br>
>> >
Hi<br>
>> ><br>
>> >
I proposed
several times
to the 1NET Co
Com that 1NET
explore
serving as<br>
>> >
a more open
multistakeholder
vehicle for
connecting
people to the
NETmundial<br>
>> >
Initiative.
Several
members
expressed
support for
that, but
since how the<br>
>> >
NMI will
evolve remains
very unclear
it’s hard to
know ex ante
how this<br>
>> >
could work. I
made the same
suggestion to
Fadi in
London, didn’t
get much<br>
>> >
reaction.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >
As I
understand the
basic idea,
NMI will have
a six month
launch managed<br>
>> >
by WEF but the
hope would be
that this
leads to
something
broader and
more<br>
>> >
inclusive in a
second phase.
Not how I
would have
done it, but
that said I<br>
>> >
wouldn’t
assume before
the fact that
the second
phase will not
come. We<br>
>> >
have to see
for starters
how the
conversation
goes 28 August
and what is<br>
>> >
possible…<br>
>> ><br>
>> >
Bill<br>
>> ><br>
>> >
On Aug 13,
2014, at 10:00
PM, Avri Doria
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG" target="_blank">avri@ACM.ORG</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>>
>> Hi,<br>
>>
>><br>
>>
>> Just
wondering, is
this a proper
list for those
who have been
catching<br>
>>
>> bits
and pieces of
the ICANN/WEF
'NetMundial
Initiaitve' to
be<br>
>>
>>
discussed.<br>
>>
>><br>
>>
>> I
think it might
be, and have
even suggested
it to others,
but figured<br>
>>
>> I<br>
>>
>>
better check
first.<br>
>>
>><br>
>>
>><br>
>>
>> avri<br>
>>
>><br>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>
>>
discuss
mailing list<br>
>>
>><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
>>
>><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> >
_______________________________________________<br>
>> >
discuss
mailing list<br>
>> ><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
>> ><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>
discuss
mailing list<br>
>><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
>><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> --<br>
> Jordan
Carter<br>
> Chief
Executive,
InternetNZ<br>
><br>
><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" value="+6421442649"
target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a><span> </span>|<span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz"
target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><br>
><br>
> Sent on
the run,
apologies for
brevity<br>
><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
> discuss
mailing list<br>
><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
><br>
><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
> discuss
mailing list<br>
><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss
mailing list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br
clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss
mailing list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss
mailing list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</span><br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.apc.org/" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>discuss mailing list</span><br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org"
target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a></span><br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss"
target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>discuss mailing list</span><br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a></span><br>
<span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></span></blockquote>
</div>
<span><Mail Attachment.txt></span>_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</span>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>