<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks Jeremy for the summary. Just to flag one immediate issue about the CC: the four categories of participants don’t correspond to the nongovernmental ones used for Sao Paulo and 1NET, and "academia, the technical community and foundations” are tossed together into one basket. I’m not sure what process can be devised here to get those three distinct groupings to agree on 5 names, inter alia since foundations have not been organized and engaged in IG processes as a stakeholder group. Unless a coordinated solution can be found (e.g. 2/2/1), one can easily imagine them getting more than 5 nominations, in which case <a href="http://CGI.br" class="">CGI.br</a>, ICANN and WEF will end up having to pick their best guess of a mix those groups will accept. So making this work as a thoroughly bottom-up process could be a challenge even if CS and business can work out their respective issues. More differentiated baskets would have saved some headaches.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">How to constitute the CC is obviously just one of the questions that will have to be worked through. How exactly the platform would operate and what the CC’s role and responsibilities would be also are very much TBD. One could imagine the CC overseeing the design of the platform; serving as as a facilitator of connections when someone proposes a project and solicits partners/support; facilitating the dissemination of progress reports; etc. But should it do more than this? It’s not clear that the CC should be deciding which project proposals can be appear on the platform; specifying a framework for their formulation and conduct; overseeing their progress, and so on. I guess it will be for the CC to figure these things out in consultation with the wider communities.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive forums/processes, no?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bill</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" class="">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="" text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="">I attended the NETmundial phone conference this
morning, interested to find out what had changed since the
previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from
civil society but more broadly. <br class="">
<br class="">
The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised
organisation but rather a platform to support distributed
governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers"
(currently <a href="http://CGI.br" class="">CGI.br</a>, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The
solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion,
and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of
the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on
developing solutions where there are gaps.<br class="">
<br class="">
There have been some changes since what was presented in August,
mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally
has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However
WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial
Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous
indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to
remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the
NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the
Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those
Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response
that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone
proposed this.)<br class="">
<br class="">
The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are
permanent seats for <a href="http://cgi.br/" class="">CGI.br</a>,
WEF, ICANN,<br class="">
the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil
society, except through <a href="http://CGI.br" class="">CGI.br</a> and the IGF. The other 20 members
will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1)
academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil
society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and
(4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions.<br class="">
<br class="">
There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is,
which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room.
Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their
own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and <a href="http://CGI.br" class="">CGI.br</a> together
reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations
were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim,
if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally
through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to
avoid giving WEF that power.)<br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide
within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to
proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG.<br class="">
<br class="">
<div apple-content-edited="true" class="">
<div style="letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div style="letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div class="">-- </div>
<div class="">Jeremy Malcolm</div>
<div class="">Senior Global Policy Analyst</div>
<div class="">Electronic Frontier Foundation</div>
<a href="https://eff.org/" class="">https://eff.org</a><br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div apple-content-edited="true" class="">
***********************************************<br class="">William J. Drake<br class="">International Fellow & Lecturer<br class=""> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br class=""> University of Zurich, Switzerland<br class="">Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, <br class=""> ICANN, <a href="http://www.ncuc.org" class="">www.ncuc.org</a><br class=""><a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" class="">william.drake@uzh.ch</a> (direct), <a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com" class="">wjdrake@gmail.com</a> (lists),<br class=""> <a href="http://www.williamdrake.org" class="">www.williamdrake.org</a><br class="">***********************************************
</div>
<br class=""></div></body></html>