<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<p
style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0 0 1em 0;">Dear
Marilyn,</p>
<p
style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0 0 1em 0;">It
sounds like the problem is not NMI but a meeting chair that let a meeting
go off-topic for an extended period ;)</p>
<p
style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0 0 1em 0;">Internet
Governance is important but only one part of a much broader Internet policy
landscape. NMI it seems to me has a chance to bridge the gap between IG and
everything else. </p>
<p
style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0 0 1em 0;">We
will all hear more about NMI in a few days. As you say, the IGF is coming
up soon, better to keep focussed on it; NMI activities largely come after
it ends.</p>
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<p
style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 10pt 0;">On
21 August 2014 12:31:26 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;"><div>I
was at a meeting yesterday where the participants said that NMI was Not to
overtake IGF. But just to be only a non event, fitting into larger
picture.</div><div><br></div><div>A govt said it was invited join SC, but
doesn't know what the purpose of the Initiative, or the funding is. Someone
said ICANN</div><div>Is funding, but ICANN</div><div>Was not in the
room. </div><div><br></div><div> Just talking about what is Not
known took 30-40 % of time out of agenda.</div><div><br></div><div>We are
better than this --core focus is IGF. </div><div><br></div><div>Let's
make sure parties whomever they are fund the </div><div>IGF first, and
ask relevant questions , and "see"</div><div>What the value added is. For
any initiative. But do not lose our focus on our IGF. It is "tomorrow" or
practically so!</div><div><br></div><div><br>Sent from my
iPhone</div><div><br>On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:04, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <<a
href="mailto:nashton@internet-ecosystem.org">nashton@internet-ecosystem.org</a>>
wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252">I agree
with Marilyn’s important point: we need the IGF and need to support its
continuation and evolution. I would add the (I hope) complementary comment
that the IGF also cannot expect to address everything related to Internet
policy globally - the WTO is the venue for trade and the Internet, the HRC
for human rights online, etc - but it can and should be a place where these
institutions come to talk about the work they are doing and to help
contextualise the whole scope of Internet-impacting policy spaces without
attempting to replace or duplicate action.<div><br>
<br><div><div>On 15 Aug 2014, at 10:23, Marilyn Cade <<a
href="mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com">marilynscade@hotmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote
type="cite"><div
style="font-family: DroidSans; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">I
want to be optimistic about any new initiative, such as the one that is now
being made more visible entitled NETmundial Initiative.<br>I will offer two
thoughts.My priority is strengthening and evolving the IGF as the forum
that other initiatives related to IG feed into.<br>this initiative by its
nature will be grass tops. As we can help to ensure that it contributes
into the IGF, and that those who are now suddenly aware of the IG Ecosystem
and key issues step up to funding of the IGF and to attending and
contributing to the IGF, this is a welcomed initiative.<br>BUT, I am
cautious that some will want to fix this initiative or change it, or debate
it at the expense of our real work and program at the IGF. As this is ONE
thing that is discussed, among the other critical activities, and doesn't
overwhelm our program, I am quite supportive.<br>I think that is the intent
of some, but it is easy to blow such an initiative, which is after all, YET
to be determined in its relevance and outputs, out of proportion.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>I look forward to more
information.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>BUT, I
remain focused on the IGF which is starting on Sept 1 with Day 0 events,
and I ask that those who are launching this initiative fully respect that
there is a program. I understand that Day 0 will have a couple of cameo
appearances.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>All
initiatives are not created equal, nor need they be.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>BUT, my measurement of all
are that there is mutual support of the IGF. <br>I do have a good
understanding of WEF from some previous corporate work life. It does
not replace any of our more bottom engagement and initiatives.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>IF this initiative can
recognize and support awareness of IG and the value of the IGF and support
how we strengthen the IGF, all the better. I will remain optimistic, but
quite focused on the IGF Istanbul. <br>Let's not be diverted by too
much focus on any particular initiative. let's remain focused on the
program of the IGF and just assume that this, like other initiatives fits
into and may contribute.<br><br><br>Marilyn Cade<br><br><br><blockquote
type="cite">Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:41:29 +0200<br>From:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
href="mailto:hhalpin@w3.org">hhalpin@w3.org</a><br>To:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
href="mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com">nnenna75@gmail.com</a>;<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>Subject: Re:
[discuss] NetMundial Initiative - My initial thoughts (As at mid August
2014)<br><br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>Hash: SHA1<br><br>In
terms of other platforms, it would be good to get the World Social<br>Forum
involved:<br><br><a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum</a><br><br>Which
was historically set up as a place where civil society and<br>social
movements meet, in contrast with the WEF. I believe the next<br>one is in
Tunis in 2015.<br><br>While the WSF has many of the issues (for example,
professional civil<br>society activists and rather a lot of organizational
disarray than<br>IGF), it is a very open forum that I think has a good deal
of<br>grassroot social movement support and was also initiated in Brazil.
It<br>is also not particularly focussed on Internet related issues
(full<br>disclosure, I've been giving Internet rights related workshops
there<br>for a few years).<br><br>That being said, at WEF, here's what I'd
like to see:<br><br>* Netmundial Initiative's needs to strengthen the
statement, in<br>particular demanding that net neutrality be implemented
(rather than<br>say, removing it due to backroom politics at the last
moment).<br><br>* Develop a plan to "crowdsource" refinements of the
statement and<br>localized versions thereof. That's a hard software problem
but one<br>worth tackling.<br><br>* Have Internet governance be accountable
to the citizens of the<br>world, not via the ITU, but perhaps by doing
something radical like<br>transforming the IGF or some other body into a
oversight body for ICANN.<br><br>* Develop an actual political programme to
accomplish these goals with<br>a realistic timeframe and determining key
points of leverage over<br>un-cooperative governments and
corporations.<br><br>* Realize that traditionally large-scale grassroots
social movements<br>have historically changed the world rather than small
groups of people<br>- - be they either the political/technical elite or
jet-setting "civil<br>society activists" that have no actual social
movement behind them. So<br>how can a small group of people help build a
large-scale, open social<br>movement with clear goals?<br><br>Sadly, there
is *no* strong and co-ordinated global grassroots<br>movement around
internet governance and internet rights today,<br>although the local
national-level efforts in places recently like<br>Turkey and the
Philippines have been amazing and demand our full<br>support, and the
SOPA/ACTA protests showed that global pressure is<br>possible. Thus,
strengthening and building a global internet rights<br>movement is of
utmost importance.<br><br>Obviously, *any* organizational forum, regardless
of place or<br>attendance, can be a hot-air factory with negligible
political or<br>technical force - and this holds equally true of IGF, WEF,
WSF, and<br>the like.<br><br>Likewise, if *any* organizational forum can
help this situation and<br>provide resources and co-ordination, then all
power to the people. If<br>this comes from the WEF (which does has some
Internet pioneers as<br>members such as Tim Berners-Lee as well as other
visionaries) at this<br>point I'm not going to be particularly
bothered.<br><br>However, what history will judge us not by what our goals
are, but by<br>if we accomplish them or not. That's the yardstick we should
judge<br>Netmundial by. Generally small groups producing an initial plan
and<br>then open consultations and movement-building is a fairly
effective<br>methodology for organizing social
movements.<br><br> cheers,<br> harry<br><br><br><br>On
08/15/2014 08:32 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">I
would like to raise thoughts that are going on in my head:<br><br><br>1.
About the invitation list not being balanced. I think it
might<br>be worth the effort asking who was invited and not who
confirmed.<br>There are invited folks whose names are not on that leaked
list and<br>there are folks whose names are on the leaked list who will not
be<br>there. And maybe clearly ask; Is there someone who wants
an<br>invite? 2. On WEF as the platform. I do not think that NMI
has<br>said it is not open to other platforms. The only other one
that<br>has been raised so far is the IGF. I do not see anywhere
where the<br>NMI has speciically stated that it is anti-IGF. I rather see
the<br>contrary 3. About NMI being elitist: It is not clear what
the<br>contrary will be. People who have no knowledge and no expertise?
No<br>understanding of IG4D issues and who were absent at
NetMundial?<br>Even at that, I have already seen mails on both sides; one
side<br>saying "these are not the real Internet guys", and the
other<br>saying "it is the same old folks". 4. On Openness and
transparency.<br>The method being used by Fadi and ICANN in NMI is not too
different<br>from the one used in NM itself, if we analyse it
clearly. This<br>time, it is just that the partner/platform is different.
Brazil<br>convened NM in their way and WEF is convening NMI their way.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Granted, Brazil is more open
and more participatory than WEF. 5. On<br>the rush: As at October 2013,
most of what we knew about NM was<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>either rumors or unverified.
The only consistent information
was<br>"nothing is consistent and we are are still scoping". But NM
was<br>pulled off. 6. On the process. I do not expect a
NetMundial<br>Initiative to begin to crowdsource as NetMundial did. Why?
Because<br>the Initiative already has the NM outcome document. 7.
On<br>Consultations. It is not clear whether people expect an
"enhanced<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>cooperation"-type
of working group after NetMundial. This model<br>where we spend months
clarifying representation, and another series<br>of months going round the
issue.. only to finally end at a<br>deadlock. And future months...
trying to revive the discussion. 8.<br>On the IGF: We are 9 years down the
"discussions" in IGF. If NM<br>and IGF are to be actionable, it just means
that we need another<br>instance. Why? Because IGF is not action-oriented.
It has not been<br>and will probably not be. It is probably because of this
that NM<br>itself was welcome, because it put down what can be and needs to
be<br>DONE. 9. On ICANN's non-buttom-up strategy. This is traditional
to<br>ICANN. It has not changed and probably will not. ICANN does
not<br>seek communities that are not active.. it draws from active
ones.<br>The philosophy is the same here:
"do you want to join in the<br>action?", if yes, "Welcome". The UN
(as mirrored in the IGF) does<br>not use this method. It seeks to
balance representation, to be as<br>inclusive as possible, to be
conciliatory, to find consensus, to<br>terms that will satisfy all...
10. About Fadi. Certainly edgy,<br>more action oriented, risk-taking and
brave in innovation. For now,<br>we cannot deny the fact that he has been
one of the pillars of<br>NetMundial. He kicked it off in the same way.. and
everyone seems<br>to be building on it.<br><br>All of the above is neither
FOR nor AGAINST the NetMundial<br>Initiative. Having followed this process
since 2000, my personal<br>conclusion is that I would rather have movement
forward than<br>movement in circles. I'd rather begin with with a willing
and<br>active group and amend it on the way.<br><br>NMI will certainly not
satisfy all the wishes of all the<br>stakeholders. I do not even see it as
being one of its objectives.<br>It just wants to take the NM document
and begin to do things that<br>it set out.<br><br>The WEF may not be the
best place to host this, but it has its<br>advantages. I did time at the
Digital Solidarity Fund and the<br>bitter experiences there make me want to
believe that the WEF may<br>even be a good place. Better places may exist,
let us suggest them<br>between now and the 6 months that
follow.<br><br>DISCLAIMER: My name is first on the leaked list on Civil
Society.<br>I received an invitation on my personal @opensource
account. I<br>will not be in Geneva. First because I do not have the
time and<br>energy to go through the humiliating 10-weeks Schengen visa
process<br>and secondly because I am already booked elsewhere. My reply to
the<br>invite was
"I will be absent but I will contribute"<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________
discuss mailing<br>list <a
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><a
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br><br></blockquote>-----BEGIN
PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>Version: GnuPG v1.4.11
(GNU/Linux)<br><br>iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT7f/5AAoJEPgwUoSfMzqcJRYQAIbzALCa4c7rb7d5m9ccHa8a<br>J6ZZERAxUQMaEG7rpa0sLfPSV98awwLCOOTZc1X7E2aSaWCOwkw2JOG4brhbtC/p<br>PGBtmLG2sF6m/cbXnHPHN5CEBI44Ar+GAC4QBMmPQ66uDv7GfRFO8ogS+CoUQKSt<br>Vkx2/ZPtqZNXTC1BXf4ysczFDgAERc1G6IQQ94l7XsaPFQ5ccNaWVN9bUqdWVLFQ<br>pz+l4cMAFE5nIqVW5DUelp77iCvzV6v1Hnm9tB0bmrXM0saHb8ycRhWhUuta9ySM<br>j8qHq7wkAtr4mHIAbxo5mEzsQgHfEDMKoIR1EuOcAxwMqwOB9PFCT02YwRoMOSBa<br>1NUoXXT8R+aGClh41ZQlOLAPyrVJiAvUzKqnqdd4rUD8m9EEz0VCr10wHzeRL7S+<br>i/R4pATQlRo7sRYMs5bv/0YQ9KDm4j4zURPt5JKEJYsdFIpEi2e4DowM6KyWII7p<br>gwapMD8Hw+WKXLraxMA3z3pAz3h6yD81SdG+vkj8VLZfil1BlSPt/WdEhAQmYo7b<br>gZh8HLwQimf39JFP7PAn5TJbnZ7aoF+7dxUCPvTtFWCoMwVZ9e1+PVGPs/bkhuoq<br>Go2KNBfcT/rCZ4Mbvychokd6+NCggWYS7zEjbRxiTgKc9/y/KFQs1NZ6Edvi9bgz<br>1zqFXLzbfwcfl67BpHuj<br>=58GX<br>-----END
PGP
SIGNATURE-----<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>discuss
mailing list<br><a
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br><a
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br></blockquote><span
class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><span
class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space: pre;"> </span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> <span
class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><span
class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space: pre;"> </span> _______________________________________________<br>discuss
mailing list<br><a
href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br><a
href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>