<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear all,<br><br></div>I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anne@webfoundation.org" target="_blank">anne@webfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<br><div>/SNIP/ <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><div>If we can figure out what goals we agree on and that seem to require some kind of global public action, then in the spirit of form following function, maybe the rather daunting discussion on the best institutional model(s) will become easier to have. For example, once we clarify the goals, we can think harder about viable routes for an international body or forum to make an impact on them, which might be different for different goals. Purely through cultivating consensus and setting norms? Through negotiated agreement on globally applicable but ultimately non-binding regulatory models (a la ITU) or legal principles (a la UN Convenant on ESC Rights)? Through some kind of WTO-style treaty body that wields an enforcement mechanism and sanctions? Through control of key internet standards and resources (a la ICANN)? Some combination of the above? Or none of the above?!</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>One of the reasons the Internet Democracy Project suggested a decentralised model of Internet governance is precisely because it allows such a constant and ongoing mapping of processes on goals (see our proposal outlined here: <a href="http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/">http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/</a>). It is unlikely that one and the same process can adequately address all issues, and some issues might even require a variety of organisations/institutions to lead a process together if that issue is to be resolved adequately. Such an approach also has the advantage of making it possible to already move on issues for which there is wide agreement on the process, without needing to wait for agreement on the one-and-only-process that is supposed to take care of all issues for all time to come. <br>
<br></div><div>Importantly, and addressing some of the concerns that Marilia and Ian expressed earlier, it would also allow to shape processes in each case in such a way that the shifting and changing power relations among different groups can be taken into account and whatever process is decided on provides as level a playing field as possible for the different groups that have a stake in that particular issue. <br>
<br></div><div>Also just still following up on a question Marilia asked earlier, and that I think wasn't answered yet: most of us present in the meeting that this document reports on thought that the MPIC or MIPOC or CSTD WG should not be making any substantive decisions or produce any concrete outcomes beyond agreeing on what the most appropriate process to handle a particular issue would be. If the MPIC/MIPOC/CSTD WG suggests that a particular institution takes the lead on setting a process to resolve an issue into motion, it is of course still up to that institution to accept or reject that request. This is the case even in the current UN architecture: the GA can only request other UN bodies to take up a matter.<br>
<br></div><div>Best,<br>Anja<br></div><div><br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Marilia Maciel</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: 23 January 2014 03:48<br>Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance<br>To: Andrew Puddephatt <<a href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org">Andrew@gp-digital.org</a>><br>Cc: "<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><br>
<br><br>Hi Andrew and all,<div><br></div><div>After
reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written
comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now
than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.</div>
<div><br></div><div>First of all, this is a very good and useful
document. You managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide
both an overview of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the
group who analyzed them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I
would initially have are the following. </div>
<div><br></div><div>- It is interesting that almost all respondents
mentioned imbalances of power, insufficient diversity of voices and
other similar things as "cases for governance reform". I think that one
conclusion from that is that although we support the idea of
multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived" and
implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to emphasize,
because some analysis that have been produced recently argue that
non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all along. In fact,
I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances
for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands
for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce
outputs or just identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I
will assume the first option is correct...</div><div><br></div><div>- I
think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you
mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC produce
recommendations and send them to other organizations: </div>
<div>a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; </div><div>b)
If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there
is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for
instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that
the MS opinion on the subject would not count in WIPO? What is the use
of that, and how does this differentiate governance of the internet to
traditional international regimes? </div>
<div>c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? </div><div>d)
the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving
the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will
be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not
forget the drama before Bali). </div>
<div>e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is
little chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a
very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of
methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF
improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive
additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and
the business and the technical community were alligned against UN public
funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of
improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary funding to the
IGF?</div>
<div>f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not
sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF
and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could
move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully</div>
<div><br></div><div>- I don't understand why power grabs were a concern
on the UN Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less
clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and
harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly
emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS processes
are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. </div>
<div><br></div><div>- The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to
exclude the possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary,
so maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the
diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.</div>
<div><br></div><div>That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions.</div><div>Thanks again for the good start</div><div>Marília</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>
<br></div><div><br></div><br></div><div> </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><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Anne</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (<a href="mailto:mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG" target="_blank">mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG</a>) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mgodwin@internews.org" target="_blank">mgodwin@internews.org</a>></span> wrote:<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><div class="h5">
<div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div><br></div><div>I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear, targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the specifics of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away something substantive from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive agenda now. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from the opportunity Brazil represents.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>—Mike</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>-- </div><div><div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:medium"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
<b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,32,96)">Mike Godwin</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project</span><span style="font-size:16.5pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><a href="mailto:mgodwin@internews.org" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:12px">mgodwin@internews.org</span></a><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:9pt"> | <b>Mobile</b> 415-793-4446</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:16.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Skype</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> mnemonic1026</span><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Address</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA</span><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><b><span style="color:rgb(0,46,98)">INTERNEWS</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(23,54,93)"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">|</span><b><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(0,112,192)"> </span></b><b><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(13,92,171)">Local Voices. Global Change.</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in"><a href="http://www.internews.org/" style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9pt">www.internews.org</span></a><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:9pt"> | </span><a href="http://www.twitter.com/internews" style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9pt">@internews</span></a><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:9pt"> | </span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/internews" style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:15px" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9pt">facebook.com/internews</span></a></p>
</div></div></div></div><div><br></div><span><div style="padding:3pt 0in 0in;text-align:left;font-size:11pt;border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;font-family:Calibri">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> "<a href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com" target="_blank">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com" target="_blank">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span> "<a href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com" target="_blank">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com" target="_blank">genekimmelman@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target="_blank">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target="_blank">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>><div>
<div><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance<br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><div><div><div>I think it would be a big mistake to avoid substance. Expand or adjust the list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point for progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others disagree? We need to adequately represent civil society. And then the discussions and negotiations can begin. ...<div>
<br></div><div>The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku best bits meeting</div><br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target="_blank">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>> <br>
Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) <br>To: <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> <br>Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance <br>
<br><br>
<div>On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Three
examples might be:<u></u><u></u></span>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>1.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Net
neutrality<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>2.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Protection
for personal privacy<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><span>3.<span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Affordable
access<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">We
could say that whatever arrangements on governance are
considered that we call on governments and other
stakeholders to guarantee these three objectives both at the
international level and in national policies. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I
would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting
endorsement for this in a two day conference</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have my doubts. If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we
stop? The technical community will say "Well if we're including net
neutrality, why not IPv6 transition?" Civil society colleages will
say (and quite rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?"
etc. Also, within your examples, affordable access falls into a
different category than the other two, having less to do with global
public policy principles.<br>
<br>
I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't
be dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on
cross-cutting principles and mechanisms.<br>
<br>
<div>-- <br>
<p style="font-size:9pt"><b>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599" value="+60377261599" target="_blank">+60 3 7726 1599</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9pt"><b>WCRD 2014 - Fix Our
Phone Rights!</b> | <a href="http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights" target="_blank">http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9pt">@Consumers_Int | <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org" target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="font-size:8pt;color:rgb(153,153,153)">Read our <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print
this email unless necessary.</p>
<p><b><span style="color:red">WARNING</span></b><span>: This email has not been encrypted. You
are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at
your end. For instructions, see <a href="http://jere.my/l/8m" target="_blank">http://jere.my/l/8m</a>.</span></p>
</div>
<br><br></div></div><font><p align="center"><font>Click <a href="https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==" target="_blank">here</a> to report this email as spam.</font></p>
</font></div></div></span></div>
<br></div></div><div class="im">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></div></blockquote></div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>
-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium">
<div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font face="Lucida Grande"><span style="font-size:11px">Anne Jellema</span></font></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font face="Lucida Grande"><span style="font-size:11px">Chief Executive Officer</span></font></div>
</div></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;word-wrap:break-word"><font face="Lucida Grande"><span style="font-size:11px">Cape Town, RSA<br>mob (ZA) <a value="+27610369652" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">+27 61 036 9352</a> </span></font></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;word-wrap:break-word"><font face="Lucida Grande"><span style="font-size:11px">tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 </span></font></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;word-wrap:break-word">
<font face="Lucida Grande"><span style="font-size:11px">tel (US) +1 202 684 6885</span></font></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;word-wrap:break-word"><font face="Lucida Grande"><span style="font-size:11px">Skype anne.jellema<br>
</span></font></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-size:11px;font-family:'Lucida Grande'">@afjellema</span><span style="font-family:'Lucida Grande'"> </span><font face="Lucida Grande"> </font><br>
<br><div><span style="font-size:11px;color:rgb(97,158,65);font-family:LucidaSans-Demi">World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | <a href="http://www.webfoundation.org/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">www.webfoundation.org</a> | Twitter: @webfoundation</span></div>
</div></div>
</font></span></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br>+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br><a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div></div>