<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Yes, the page is now resolving again.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw LLC</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155 F Street, NW</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite 1050</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington, DC 20004</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-255-6172/cell</span></b><b><span style="color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter: @VlawDC</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> dogwallah@gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>McTim<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 27, 2014 7:38 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Phil Corwin<br>
<b>Cc:</b> discuss@1net.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">it is working for me.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anyone know what is going on with this WEF-GIG Initiative?<br>
<br>
I just clicked on the link <a href="http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance" target="_blank">
http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-internet-governance</a> to jot down some information about the 8/28 meeting, and what I got was this:<br>
<br>
Sorry, access denied. You are not authorized to access this page.<br>
<br>
That's not very transparent.<br>
<br>
<br>
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<br>
Virtualaw LLC<br>
1155 F Street, NW<br>
Suite 1050<br>
Washington, DC 20004<br>
<a href="tel:202-559-8597">202-559-8597</a>/Direct<br>
<a href="tel:202-559-8750">202-559-8750</a>/Fax<br>
<a href="tel:202-255-6172">202-255-6172</a>/cell<br>
<br>
Twitter: @VlawDC<br>
<br>
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org">discuss-bounces@1net.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org">discuss-bounces@1net.org</a>] On Behalf Of
<a href="mailto:discuss-request@1net.org">discuss-request@1net.org</a><br>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
Subject: discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53<br>
<br>
Send discuss mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss-request@1net.org">discuss-request@1net.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss-owner@1net.org">discuss-owner@1net.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of discuss digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: NetMundial Initiative (Pindar Wong)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:12:44 +0800<br>
From: Pindar Wong <<a href="mailto:pindar.wong@gmail.com">pindar.wong@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Stephanie Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [discuss] NetMundial Initiative<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAM7BtUrAzZpis%2B857LUrf19NdZLBm7WHCUPDuDzsG68m0Q5%2BWw@mail.gmail.com">CAM7BtUrAzZpis+857LUrf19NdZLBm7WHCUPDuDzsG68m0Q5+Ww@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I guess the details will surface during tomorrow's event.<br>
<br>
However does anyone know the remote participation details?<br>
<br>
>From the FAQ: ' Both working sessions and the press conference will be<br>
webcast live, and there will be an active blog and discussion board established to facilitate a two-way flow of information with the public'<br>
<br>
p.<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Stephanie Perrin < <a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">
stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I am very curious as to what the precise funding is for the NMI<br>
> initiative at the WEF. Does anyone know?<br>
> Kind regards,<br>
> Stephanie Perrin<br>
> On 2014-08-15, 2:14, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:<br>
><br>
> I woke up early this morning and read Anne Jellema (CEO of Web<br>
> Foundation)'s blog post. She titled it "Fall of Internet Governance?"<br>
><br>
> I found it interesting, especially from the civil society point of view.<br>
><br>
> Nnenna<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Chip Sharp (chsharp)<br>
> <<a href="mailto:chsharp@cisco.com">chsharp@cisco.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Nick, all,<br>
>> I hope you all are doing well. Please keep in mind that what has<br>
>> been leaked is an invitation list, not an attendance list. I don't<br>
>> assume it is a list of supporters. I just don't see all the invited<br>
>> industry CEOs dropping everything on short notice and flying to Davos.<br>
>> I'm just going to have to wait and hear what those of you who choose<br>
>> to attend report back and what is reported out at IGF.<br>
>><br>
>> Chip<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:33 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <<br>
>> <a href="mailto:nashton@internet-ecosystem.org">nashton@internet-ecosystem.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Joe and all,<br>
>><br>
>> I think Janis? reply to yours below and Kathy?s after that captured<br>
>> the essence of what I would say. I would add two things:<br>
>><br>
>> From what has been leaked, the level of support is robust and broad;<br>
>> it is particularly welcome to see so many senior industry leaders<br>
>> from ?non-traditional? Internet governance-engaged firms on board<br>
>> this early. I also like hearing that major NGOs who have historically<br>
>> had limited time and effort for Internet policy are getting involved.<br>
>> We need their muscle, their ideas, and their expertise.<br>
>><br>
>> Secondly, I would add that as I know Rick Samans of WEF and have<br>
>> spoken to him at length about the Internet policy landscape I think<br>
>> the process will end up being a real asset to the very difficult<br>
>> situation that the Internet faces, where, frankly, the traditional<br>
>> 'Internet Governance? space is being wagged by much bigger and more<br>
>> powerful dogs to the detriment of everyone. We need new, and high<br>
>> level, engagement and new collaborative processes to get to a place<br>
>> where we are working from shared positive incentives and across much<br>
>> broader areas than traditional Internet Governance represents and covers.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards Nick<br>
>> On 14 Aug 2014, at 12:52, joseph alhadeff<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I wanted to write to echo many of Anriette's sentiments. I too am<br>
>> writing in my personal capacity as we are canvassing the ICC-BASIS<br>
>> membership on their views.<br>
>><br>
>> First, let me clarify that while business actively engaged in the Net<br>
>> Mundial meeting and supported it's outcomes, there were significant<br>
>> process and other shortcomings in the runup and operation of Net<br>
>> Mundial. Business has not focused on these issues as we believed<br>
>> that it was more important to focus on achievements rather than<br>
>> shortcomings, but if there are attempts to institutionalize the<br>
>> 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,<br>
>> where reflection and inflection was needed; it served that purpose<br>
>> 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<br>
>> that justify the WEF initiative by the fumbling of IGF. Can and<br>
>> should IGF be improved? Yes, absolutely. Does IGF play a useful<br>
>> role, even in its present role, I believe it does. After these years<br>
>> of IGF we have begun to take the conversation it engenders for<br>
>> granted. While these multistakeholder conversations don't yield<br>
>> immediate results they are the stepping stones to understanding and a<br>
>> foundation of consensus. IGF remains one of the few places if not<br>
>> *the* place for such conversation to occur. The frustration is that<br>
>> we don't build on the small victories in consensus, we don't properly<br>
>> capture the capacity building and we are not sufficiently innovative<br>
>> in considering how to approach these issues. Net Mundial and the<br>
>> prep for this IGF has increased the focus on these topis and has<br>
>> generated some hope and anticipation for real improvements to be<br>
>> considered. These improvements should not be made at the expense of<br>
>> the unique DNA of the organization - the avoidance of positions<br>
>> 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<br>
>> to launch a multistakeholder initiative. The process we are all<br>
>> engaged in now, rooting out facts and chasing down rumors, is<br>
>> somewhat reminiscent of what we were doing in Bali related to what<br>
>> would become Net Mundial. While there may be some beneficial need for<br>
>> positive engagement from the top, mutlistakeholder must also have<br>
>> bottom up roots. WEF may have a role to play, but to do so they must<br>
>> be more transparent as to motivation, outcomes, process and<br>
>> participation. It is also important for the WEF NMI to reinforce, as<br>
>> Net Mundial did, the important role of IGF and highlight how they will support that role and function.<br>
>><br>
>> I would also like to point out that this fact clearing-house function<br>
>> may do more to return active participation to the 1net discuss list<br>
>> than any topic since Net Mundial.<br>
>><br>
>> Joe<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> n 8/14/2014 11:10 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for this excellent post Anriette. Obviously, I agree<br>
>> whole-heartedly. I am very glad you are going, and I wish you all<br>
>> the luck in the world. You will likely need it.<br>
>> Best wishes.<br>
>> Stephanie Perrin<br>
>> On 14-08-14 8:00 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Dear all<br>
>><br>
>> Writing this in my personal capacity. My organisation, the<br>
>> Association for Progressive Communications, has not yet finalised its<br>
>> reaction to this discussion.<br>
>><br>
>> I have not been involved in the NETmundial initiative, but have been<br>
>> aware of it since ICANN 50 in London. I have been invited to the 28<br>
>> August event.<br>
>><br>
>> Aside from those concerns already stated on this list, which I share,<br>
>> I want to add I am not convinced that this initiative, based at the<br>
>> WEF, and adopting a 'get all the great leaders into the room'<br>
>> 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<br>
>> service of the 'greater good' and I don't want to condemn the<br>
>> NETmundial initiative or its initiators. I do believe it should be<br>
>> viewed critically however, as a lot is at stake.<br>
>><br>
>> Getting process right is never easy, but it is important to try hard<br>
>> to do so, particularly when building something that is intended to be<br>
>> long term.<br>
>><br>
>> The NETmundial process was not perfect, but it made a HUGE effort to<br>
>> be inclusive and transparent. The degree to which it succeeded<br>
>> contributed to its legitimacy and success. The NETmundial Initiative<br>
>> needs to consider this very carefully. Of course it makes sense to<br>
>> work with smaller groups of people to get any initiative going, but<br>
>> in the internet world, and probably in the world everywhere these<br>
>> days, not being transparent about how these smaller groups are<br>
>> constituted and how they operate is 1) a lost cause as leaking can be<br>
>> assumed, 2) not necessary and 3) probably somewhat foolish.<br>
>><br>
>> But assuming that the NETmundial Initiative process will become more<br>
>> transparent and inclusive in the next few weeks, I still have a<br>
>> fundamental concern about its format and location. I am not<br>
>> convinced that it is tactically what is really needed to build on the<br>
>> substantial achievements of the NETmundial, the IGF before it, and<br>
>> the many people who have tried to make multi-stakeholder internet<br>
>> policy processes work in the real world over the last decade.<br>
>><br>
>> My reasons are (mostly) as follows:<br>
>><br>
>> *1) Choice of 'location' in the context of power and politics in<br>
>> multi-stakeholder internet governance*<br>
>><br>
>> Most of us consider the NETmundial a success and the NETmundial<br>
>> statement a strong, positive document that avoids the traps of 'cheap' consensus.<br>
>><br>
>> By that I mean that the final statement reflects consensus,<br>
>> disagreement, and issues that need follow-up and further elaboration.<br>
>> That not all agreed on the pre-final draft (there were some last<br>
>> minute disagreements about text related to intermediary liability<br>
>> and surveillance) with the final version reflecting these<br>
>> negotiations actually makes it an even stronger document, in my view,<br>
>> even if some of the text I would have liked to see in it was<br>
>> excluded. To me this represents that the stakeholders involved in the<br>
>> development of the text were able to work together, and disagree. The<br>
>> disagreement was resolved in favour of the more power and influential<br>
>> - not civil society of course. I don't mind this. It reflects<br>
>> reality. And I know that civil society did also gain hugely with most<br>
>> of our demands making it through. Over time these power arrangements<br>
>> might change, and those of us working for the public interested in<br>
>> 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<br>
>> a site for taking the NETmundial forward attention has to be given to<br>
>> ensuring that it is a platform where dynamics related to power and<br>
>> influence among stakeholders in IG is able to play themselves out on<br>
>> a relatively equal playing field, with that playing field becoming<br>
>> more equal as time goes on.<br>
>><br>
>> WEF does not provide this. Yes, certain big name civil society<br>
>> leaders attend WEF meetings. Others are present. Developing country<br>
>> leaders also attend, and it is seen as a powerful pro-business, pro<br>
>> US and Europe forum for reaching business leaders, and facilitating<br>
>> networking among the prominent and powerful (with some being both).<br>
>><br>
>> But is it the right space to establish something sustained, inclusive<br>
>> and bottom up that can gradually lead the way in building the<br>
>> legitimacy and inclusiveness needed to operationalise the NETmundial<br>
>> 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<br>
>> participate in WEF forums, or of ICANN, or anyone else involved in<br>
>> the NETmundial initiative. But first and foremost as someone from a<br>
>> developing country who has experienced the ups and downs and highs<br>
>> and lows of multistakeholder IG for a long time and secondly as a<br>
>> member of civil society. To me WEF simply does not feel like a space<br>
>> where developing country people and civil society will ever have a<br>
>> equal power with powerful "northern" governments and global business.<br>
>><br>
>> *2) What do we really need to*<br>
>><br>
>> *operationalise and consolidate the NETmundial outcomes? *Glamorous<br>
>> gatherings of the powerful and prominent in IG (be they government,<br>
>> from the north and the south, tech community, business or civil<br>
>> society) will help to keep networking going, create the opportunity<br>
>> for self-congratulation for those of us who were part of the<br>
>> NETmundial in some way (and I had the privilege to make submissions<br>
>> 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<br>
>> stands for (public interested, democratic multistakeholder and human<br>
>> rights oriented internet governance) into the day to day running of<br>
>> the internet in ways that will be felt by existing and future users?<br>
>><br>
>> I don't think so.<br>
>><br>
>> I think that what is needed is building lasting (and they have to be<br>
>> very strong because they will be attacked) bridges between a process<br>
>> such as NETmundial, and its outcomes, and institutions and people<br>
>> that make governance and regulatory decisions on a day to day basis.<br>
>> I want to see, for example, freedom of expression online enshrined in<br>
>> the contitutions of very government of the world. I want governments<br>
>> (and where relevant,<br>
>> businesses) to be held accountable for making sure that all people<br>
>> everywhere can access the internet.<br>
>><br>
>> This means engaging those that are not yet part of the<br>
>> multi-stakeholder internet governance 'in-crowd'. It requires<br>
>> working with national governments. Regional intergovernmental bodies<br>
>> as well as international onces, including those in the UN system.<br>
>><br>
>> Will a NETmundial Initiative based at the WEF prevent the rejection<br>
>> of multi-stakeholder processes (and of women's rights for that<br>
>> matter) that was evident in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced<br>
>> Cooperation? Or efforts among ITU member states to increase<br>
>> governmental oversight over internet governance? Or tension between<br>
>> 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<br>
>> it were to make the gains that are needed, and that are not already<br>
>> being made through processes such as the IGF, even if only in part.<br>
>> And a good starting point would be to identify how those governments<br>
>> that were at the NETmundial, but whom did not support the final<br>
>> statement publicly (some said publicly they did not support it, and<br>
>> others failed to show support simply by staying silent).<br>
>><br>
>> How do they feel about this WEF-based NETmundial initiative? I see<br>
>> some of them are invited. I know of at least one, present in Sao<br>
>> 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<br>
>> make is that for internet regulation across the ecosystem to comply<br>
>> with the principles in the NETmundial statement and get get the<br>
>> NETmundial roadmap used as a guide we don't need more expensive<br>
>> global gatherings. We need existing governance institutions and<br>
>> processes, including those not yet on the multi-stakeholder<br>
>> bandwagon, to consider and adopt NETmundial principles and integrate<br>
>> those into their governance decisions and processes. And I am not<br>
>> convinced that a WEF based forum constituted in the way the NETmundial Initiative has been, is up to that task.<br>
>><br>
>> *3) NETmundial **Initiative and the IGF and the broader internet<br>
>> community*<br>
>><br>
>> The NETmundial outcome documents mentions the IGF repeatedly. It<br>
>> recommends strengthening of the IGF, and asks the IGF to take the<br>
>> discussion of complex IG issues forward. This reflects both the<br>
>> inputs received prior to the Sao Paulo meeting, as well as<br>
>> deliberations in Sao Paulo. It reflects the will of those from ALL<br>
>> stakeholder groups who participated in the NETmundial.<br>
>><br>
>> I therefore find completely inappropriate that an initiative which<br>
>> takes the name of the NETmundial, and which sets out to take the<br>
>> NETmundial outcomes forward, does not have a closer link to the IGF.<br>
>><br>
>> In fact, at the very least it should have used the IGF as a platform<br>
>> for presenting itself and getting feedback from the broader community<br>
>> active in the internet governance ecosystem which has been using the<br>
>> IGF as its primary discussion space.<br>
>><br>
>> The IGF is an existing forum that is still linked to the UN system,<br>
>> and through that, to those parts of the internet governance ecosystem<br>
>> populated by governments. It is a bridge. It needs to be stronger,<br>
>> and used more, but it exists and many of us has put a lot of work<br>
>> into it over the last 8 years.<br>
>><br>
>> Without much capacity and resources, the IGF continues year after<br>
>> year, overwhelmed with a demand from the internet community it cannot<br>
>> come close to meet (e.g. no of workshop proposals that cannot be accommodated).<br>
>> Regional and national IGFs have their own trajectory too.. ups and<br>
>> downs there too.. but overall becoming more inclusive. The IGF<br>
>> process has not even begun to fulfill its potential. Particularly not<br>
>> at the level of interacting with other institutions and capturing and<br>
>> communicating the outcomes from IGF discussions effectively.<br>
>><br>
>> 1000s of people have been working in this IGF processes, people who<br>
>> are trying to create change on the ground by getting different<br>
>> stakeholder groups to listen to one another and work towards a more<br>
>> inclusive and fair internet. People who are trying to find<br>
>> constructive ways of challenging practices (be they driven by governments or business) that, for example.<br>
>> blocks affordable access, or free expression on the internet. If you<br>
>> count all the IGFs around the world we are talking about 10s of<br>
>> thousands of people. The lack of respect shown to all these people<br>
>> and organisations by NETmundial Initiative rings loud alarm bells in my ears.<br>
>><br>
>> I might be overly sensitive. I will really happy if my skepticism<br>
>> proves to be unfounded as I really do believe that we need democratic<br>
>> multi-stakeholder governance of the internet, and I believe that the<br>
>> NETmundial principles can help us get there.<br>
>><br>
>> I guess I am also somewhat saddened.. having invested so much in th<br>
>> NETmundial, that this, the first initiative after April 2014 to take<br>
>> its name, is doing such a bad job at living up to what the NETmundial<br>
>> process principles advocate.<br>
>><br>
>> Anriette<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 14/08/2014 09:52, Chris Disspain wrote:m<br>
>><br>
>> I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to<br>
>> attention of the industry leaders and key government representatives<br>
>> Internet governance issues, emphasising the need of preservation and<br>
>> promotion of the multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the<br>
>> IGF as a multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging<br>
>> participation in its work of those companies and governments that<br>
>> haven't been involved until kn<br>
>><br>
>> (l<br>
>> Yes, that is also my understanding. A particular emphasis was made<br>
>> of supporting the IGF but, I guess, time will tell.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Cheers, wha<br>
>><br>
>> Chri<br>
>><br>
>> On 14 Aug 2014, at 17:39 , Janis Karklins <<a href="mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com">karklinsj@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> As being one of invited to the launch event of the WEF initiative I<br>
>> would like to share information that I possess.<br>
>><br>
>> The World Economic Forum is an international institution committed to<br>
>> improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation<br>
>> (statement on the website). WEFcommunities are various and more can<br>
>> be seen athttp://<a href="http://www.weforum.org/communities" target="_blank">www.weforum.org/communities</a>. Organizationally the<br>
>> WEFis membership organization where big multinationals from all over<br>
>> the world are widely represented. The WEF invites representatives of<br>
>> governments, academia, civil society, world of arts participate in<br>
>> their meetings and engage with key industry leaders. This explains<br>
>> why the invitees list is one you see.<br>
>><br>
>> I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to<br>
>> attention of the industry leaders and key government representatives<br>
>> Internet governance issues, emphasising the need of preservation and<br>
>> promotion of the multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the<br>
>> IGF as a multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging<br>
>> participation in its work of those companies and governments that<br>
>> haven't been involved until know.<br>
>><br>
>> I know that Alan Markus intends to present and discuss the initiative<br>
>> at the 2014 IGF meeting and there will be ample opportunity for the<br>
>> IG community to clarify details.<br>
>><br>
>> I hope that this information is useful.<br>
>> JK<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Joana Varon<<a href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com">joana@varonferraz.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> *Current status of IG debate:* we need leaks to know what is going on!<br>
>>> Pretty bad for a start.<br>
>>><br>
>>> @jordan carter: "why a noted business centred forum is the place to<br>
>>> launch an Internet governance initiative?" - a question to be echoed indeed.<br>
>>><br>
>>> It is a shame after the whole attempt of NETMudial to innovate in a<br>
>>> meeting process, seeking some transparency, openness and inclusion,<br>
>>> something like this comes up under the same "brand". Hello Brazil?!<br>
>>><br>
>>> @jeremy and members of the so called "evil cabal", if you go, you<br>
>>> have an important role to feed people with the most important asset:<br>
>>> information. I bet we will be always prompt for feedback.<br>
>>><br>
>>> hoping for the best, though looking at... the worst?<br>
>>><br>
>>> regards<br>
>>><br>
>>> joana<br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> --<br>
>>><br>
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz<br>
>>> @joana_varon<br>
>>> PGP 0x016B8E73<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Seth<br>
>>> Johnson<<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> More that the IGF phase wasn't going to work. IGF has always been<br>
>>>> in a tough spot, not so much fumbling the ball -- as if that's<br>
>>>> anything other than an endemic feature of any organization of a<br>
>>>> similar 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<br>
>>>> a 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>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> > I think it's more the case that the IGF has so badly fumbled the<br>
>>>> > ball<br>
>>>> that<br>
>>>> > it falls to someone - anyone - else to pick it up. But that is<br>
>>>> > not to discount the valid criticisms that others have expressed<br>
>>>> > and that I<br>
>>>> 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>
>>>> > <a href="https://eff.org" target="_blank">https://eff.org</a><br>
>>>> > <a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br>
>>>> ><br>
>>>> > Tel: <a href="tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161">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<br>
>>>> > <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>><br>
>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>> ><br>
>>>> > Can someone explain why a noted business centred forum is the<br>
>>>> > place to 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<br>
>>>> 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<br>
>>>> > rapidly<br>
>>>> disclose<br>
>>>> > some authoritative information.<br>
>>>> ><br>
>>>> > Jordan<br>
>>>> ><br>
>>>> > On Thursday, 14 August 2014, Stephen Farrell <<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie">stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie</a>><br>
>>>> > wrote:<br>
>>>> >><br>
>>>> >><br>
>>>> >> Gotta say... seems like elitist nonsense to me having looked at<br>
>>>> >> the invite list and other docs. The elitist part should be<br>
>>>> >> obvious. The nonsense part is due to almost none of the list of<br>
>>>> >> invitees being known for knowing about the Internet. It seems<br>
>>>> >> much more an elite than an Internet-savvy list of folks being<br>
>>>> >> asked to form a new cabal. That said, cabals aren't all bad, and<br>
>>>> >> I've no reason to think very badly of this particular subset of<br>
>>>> >> the elite and its I guess just more meaningless policy stuff so<br>
>>>> >> 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<br>
>>>> serving as<br>
>>>> >> > a more open multistakeholder vehicle for connecting people to<br>
>>>> >> > the<br>
>>>> NETmundial<br>
>>>> >> > Initiative. Several members expressed support for that, but<br>
>>>> >> > since<br>
>>>> how the<br>
>>>> >> > NMI will evolve remains very unclear it?s hard to know ex ante<br>
>>>> >> > how<br>
>>>> this<br>
>>>> >> > could work. I made the same suggestion to Fadi in London,<br>
>>>> >> > didn?t<br>
>>>> get much<br>
>>>> >> > reaction.<br>
>>>> >> ><br>
>>>> >> > As I understand the basic idea, NMI will have a six month<br>
>>>> >> > launch<br>
>>>> managed<br>
>>>> >> > by WEF but the hope would be that this leads to something<br>
>>>> >> > broader<br>
>>>> and more<br>
>>>> >> > inclusive in a second phase. Not how I would have done it,<br>
>>>> >> > but<br>
>>>> that said I<br>
>>>> >> > wouldn?t assume before the fact that the second phase will not<br>
>>>> come. We<br>
>>>> >> > have to see for starters how the conversation goes 28 August<br>
>>>> >> > and<br>
>>>> what is<br>
>>>> >> > possible?<br>
>>>> >> ><br>
>>>> >> > Bill<br>
>>>> >> ><br>
>>>> >> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:00 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> >> ><br>
>>>> >> >> Hi,<br>
>>>> >> >><br>
>>>> >> >> Just wondering, is this a proper list for those who have been<br>
>>>> catching<br>
>>>> >> >> bits and pieces of the ICANN/WEF 'NetMundial Initiaitve' to<br>
>>>> >> >> be discussed.<br>
>>>> >> >><br>
>>>> >> >> I think it might be, and have even suggested it to others,<br>
>>>> >> >> but<br>
>>>> figured<br>
>>>> >> >> I<br>
>>>> >> >> better check first.<br>
>>>> >> >><br>
>>>> >> >><br>
>>>> >> >> avri<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" target="_blank">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>>>> >> ><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" target="_blank">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>>>> >> ><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" 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>
>>>> > <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649">+64-21-442-649</a> | <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">
jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a><br>
>>>> ><br>
>>>> > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity<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" target="_blank">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>>>> ><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" target="_blank">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><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" target="_blank">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><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" target="_blank">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>>><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" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> discuss mailing<br>
>> listdiscuss@1net.orghttp://<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus" target="_blank">1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus</a><br>
>> s<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> `````````````````````````````````<br>
>> anriette esterhuysen<br>
>> executive director<br>
>> association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville,<br>
>> 2109, south <a href="mailto:africaanriette@apc.orgwww.apc.org">africaanriette@apc.orgwww.apc.org</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> discuss mailing<br>
>> listdiscuss@1net.orghttp://<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus" target="_blank">1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus</a><br>
>> s<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> discuss mailing<br>
>> listdiscuss@1net.orghttp://<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus" target="_blank">1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discus</a><br>
>> s<br>
>><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" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>><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" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>><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" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> discuss mailing<br>
> listdiscuss@1net.orghttp://<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
><br>
><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" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140827/c94d7eee/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140827/c94d7eee/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
<br>
End of discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 53<br>
**************************************<br>
<br>
-----<br>
No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7992 - Release Date: 08/06/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.<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" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="1" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7992 - Release Date: 08/06/14<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>