<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Michael,<br><br></div><div>When I talk about decentralisation, this is not simply a vague notion, but a reference to a vision and plan which already consists of several components and is slowly gaining more and more detail. The end goal of this work is to have quite a detailed map. The challenge will be to make sure that everyone has access to that map, but at least (if not more) to the extent that people can find their way in the UN system, I would think we can make sure that people can find their way in this ecosystem as well. <br>
<br>In fact, to the extent that that ecosystem would actually build on the existing UN system (which is an integral part of what we propose), this decentralisation should even make it easier for groups that are not yet involved in Internet governance but that are already involved in particular debates at the global level to find their way to relevant internet governance debates, as those debates would then often come to the venues in which they are already working, rather than these groups having to go and look for these venues and debates. <br>
<br></div><div>Contrary to your claim, such a system, as we also explain in the short paper on our ideas which I have shared earlier, would actually benefit developing country actors - be it governments or civil society - in particular, as for us knowing beforehand that a particular process is going to actually address a particular concern is a far more important factor in deciding whether to invest very limited resources than it is for many developed country actors. Amorphous processes and venues, in which all issues are clubbed together, are a minus, not a plus for the developing world.<br>
<br></div><div>What is true is that for such a model to be successful, the range of civil society organisations/networks, especially organisations and networks that represent marginalised peoples, that is involved in IG debates needs to expand significantly. As for how to achieve that, solidarity and organisation are needed as much on the global level I would say as they are on the grassroots level. <br>
<br></div><div>Best,<br></div><div>Anja<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 8 February 2014 11:01, michael gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Anja,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">One thing that I do know from my own work on the ground is that the only power that the marginalized have comes through their solidarity and organization… Vague notions of “decentralization” are precisely what those who wish to retain power present as solutions knowing full well that such would lead to the dispersal of energy and limited resources by the poor and marginalized. (As by the way the Less Developed Countries know full well and recognize as a tactic by the Developed Countries to reduce LDC opportunities for participation in decision making since they don’t have the resources to track and participate in multiple venues and multiple processes).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">M<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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""> Anja Kovacs [mailto:<a href="mailto:anja@internetdemocracy.in" target="_blank">anja@internetdemocracy.in</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 07, 2014 5:10 PM<br><b>To:</b> michael gurstein<br><b>Cc:</b> Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; <,<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>,</span></p>
<div><div class="h5"><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
Hi Michael,<u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent earlier, I felt compelled to respond directly.<u></u><u></u></p></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I have no naive assumptions about power. I do have a very different reading of the current state of play than you have. All evidence points in the direction that there are (to quote your words) "<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from whatever process</span>" already in most policy processes. The crucial difference between multistakeholder processes and other processes as far as I'm concerned is that civil society now can provide such insertions as well. That is the opportunity here, and as I don't see other stakeholder groups abdicating their power in far more closed processes so easily, I am not willing to let go of that opportunity until and unless we have explored every last bits of its potential to allow groups in society with far less power to influence policy processes and thus to help strengthen and further democratic policy making. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal">Do we need safeguards etc? Yes, of course, and as I said in my earlier message, I quite firmly believe that decentralisation is in fact one of those safeguards, as is the malleability of the model we propose (which does leave space for multilateral decision-making as well). But more measures are required, and it is in this that a lot of our thinking is invested at the moment (and I know that is the case for quite a few other people as well). <br>
<br>Indeed, I have found that it is by working through these ideas step by step that solutions emerge. Because my reading of the state of play is so different from yours, I think that continuing to dig deeper and deeper and sharpening these proposals step by step is the better bet, rather than letting not having the perfect answers up front stop us from sharing any ideas at all, and so that is the road on which I intend to continue.<br>
<br>All the best,<u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">Anja<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br><br><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As I’m reading the various messages and suggestions concerning Brazil and following the discussion on this list and others I’m struck by one overwhelming observation… </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Folks here seem to be assuming that whatever develops with respect to Internet Governance (and their own interventions) are taking place in a world of benign and selfless actors (stakeholders) whose only interest is in the public good and the well-being of the Internet. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thus proposals for this type of “decentralized” governance structure and that proposal for the “management of decision making through MSism” all are making the completely unwarranted and dare I say, naïve and even dangerous assumption that there are not significant, well-funded, very smart and quite likely unscrupulous forces looking to insert positions that serve and ensure the dominance of their own corporate/national/institutional interests into whatever emerges from whatever process.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">It really is hard to take any of this discussion very seriously unless there is an attendant discussion on what measures can/will be taken to ensure that these forces do not prevail… that these processes are not captured and subverted… i.e. what are the defensive strategies and institutional mechanisms that “we” (CS) are advocating as part of whatever package we are promoting.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Is no one in these CS discussions taking into consideration the overwhelming resources of wealth and power that will be impacted by whatever might emerge from these discussions and the similarly overwhelming temptation (even in some cases the responsibility) to do <u>whatever it takes</u> to twist the result to support one’s own narrow (corporate/national/institutional ) interests and what the significance of this observation has to be for these discussions and their outputs.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">M</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></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""> <a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Anja Kovacs<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM<br><b>To:</b> Anne Jellema<br><b>Cc:</b> Mike Godwin (<a href="mailto:mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG" target="_blank">mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG</a>); <a href="mailto:genekimmelman@gmail.com" target="_blank">genekimmelman@gmail.com</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><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear all,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal">I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below:<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema <<a href="mailto:anne@webfoundation.org" target="_blank">anne@webfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">/SNIP/ <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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?!<u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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/" target="_blank">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Best,<br>Anja<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b>Marilia Maciel</b> <<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com" target="_blank">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>><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" target="_blank">Andrew@gp-digital.org</a>><br>
Cc: "<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>><br><br><br>
Hi Andrew and all,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- 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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- 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...<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- 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: <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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? <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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). <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal">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<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- 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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">- 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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
Thanks again for the good start<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Marília<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Cheers<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Anne<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (<a href="mailto:mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG" target="_blank">mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG</a>) <<a href="mailto:mgodwin@internews.org" target="_blank">mgodwin@internews.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">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. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">—Mike</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">-- </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#002060">Mike Godwin</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:mgodwin@internews.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1155cc">mgodwin@internews.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> | <b>Mobile</b> 415-793-4446</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1f497d">Skype</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1f497d"> mnemonic1026</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1f497d">Address</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1f497d"> 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#002e62">INTERNEWS</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#17365d"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1f497d">|</span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#0070c0"> </span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#0d5cab">Local Voices. Global Change.</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.internews.org/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">www.internews.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> | </span><a href="http://www.twitter.com/internews" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">@internews</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> | </span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/internews" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">facebook.com/internews</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">"<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>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"<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><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<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>></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">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. ...</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku best bits meeting</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><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 </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Three examples might be:</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Net neutrality</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Protection for personal privacy</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Affordable access</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for this in a two day conference</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><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.</span><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">-- </span><u></u><u></u></p><p><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><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" target="_blank">+60 3 7726 1599</a></span><u></u><u></u></p><p><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> | <a href="http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights" target="_blank">http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">@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></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#999999">Read our <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>. Don't print this email unless necessary.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:red">WARNING</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">: 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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p style="text-align:center" align="center">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Click <a href="https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==" target="_blank">here</a> to report this email as spam.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">____________________________________________________________<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><u></u><u></u></p></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color:#888888"><br><br clear="all"></span><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#888888">-- </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#888888">Anne Jellema</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#888888">Chief Executive Officer</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#888888">Cape Town, RSA<br>mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#888888">tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#888888">tel (US) +1 202 684 6885</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#888888">Skype anne.jellema</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#888888">@afjellema</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Lucida Grande","serif";color:#888888"> </span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#888888"><br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"LucidaSans-Demi","serif";color:#619e41">World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | <a href="http://www.webfoundation.org/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">www.webfoundation.org</span></a> | Twitter: @webfoundation</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br>____________________________________________________________<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><u></u><u></u></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color:#888888"><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><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div></div></div></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>