<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Pindar Wong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pindar.wong@gmail.com" target="_blank">pindar.wong@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>I guess the details will surface during tomorrow's event.<br><br>However does anyone know the remote participation details?<br>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Apparently it will be:-<br><br><a href="http://wef.ch/netmundial">http://wef.ch/netmundial</a><br><br></div><div>p.<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div><br></div>From the FAQ: ' Both working sessions and the press conference will be 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></div>p.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I am very curious as to what the precise funding is for the NMI
initiative at the WEF. Does anyone know?<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div>On 2014-08-15, 2:14, Nnenna Nwakanma
wrote:<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>"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 href="mailto:chsharp@cisco.com" target="_blank">chsharp@cisco.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);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><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Chip</div>
</font></span>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:33 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart"
<<a 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 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 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"><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 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 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:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);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 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:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)">
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 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 href="https://eff.org/" target="_blank">https://eff.org</a><br>
><span> </span><a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br>
><br>
> Tel:<span> </span><a 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 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 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 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 href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
>>
>><span> </span><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>
>> ><span> </span><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
>> ><span> </span><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>
>><span> </span><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
>><span> </span><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>
><span> </span><a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a><span> </span>|<span> </span><a 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 href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
><span> </span><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>
><span> </span><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
><span> </span><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" target="_blank">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></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">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></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</span><br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a 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 href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>
<a href="http://www.apc.org/" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a 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 href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a 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 href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">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></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>discuss mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a></span><br>
<span><a 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 href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org" target="_blank">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></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>