From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Feb 2 07:59:35 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 13:59:35 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <675C0CFA-6CDE-49C1-BB1B-C1C26DC2247E@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks for your comment and interesting point. I will look into it __________________________ Jean-Christophe Le 30 janv. 2014 à 02:53, Hindenburgo Pires a écrit : > Dear Jean-christophe Nothias, > > I have read your paper published on Huffington Post, I would like to congratulate for your careful report, mainly about the established control of the Internet's root servers on the American continent. > In 2002 an alternative counter-hegemonic had been developed with the creation of the Open Root Server Network (ORSN). There are some reflections on these issues in my papers: > a) 2008 - Global Internet Governance: The representation of toponyms of countries in the cyberspace: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-270/sn-270-151.htm > b) 2012 - National states, sovereignty and regulation of the Internet: http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-418/sn-418-63.htm > > The ORSN was shutdown in 2008, as it was explained through the document: https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2008-October/003339.html > > In 2013 with revelations of Edward Snowden on the NSA surveillance by intelligence agencies in the United States, the system of the OSNR was again reactivated with the idea of reducing the asymmetry caused by the Internet control maintained by a single country. > > I believe ORSN could be an alternative against this control and it doesn't represent a fragmentation of internet. > > This was the reason for reactivation of the ORSN: http://www.orsn.org/en/ > > Welcome to the project page of the Open Root Server Network. > > The ORSN was founded in January 2002 and operated to the middle of 2008. At that time, the former ICANN organists DNS root server were mainly represented on the American continent. Only a few systems were installed in the rest of the world. Our aim is it to reduce this imbalance and make the European Community less dependent on the American system. Our DNS network was constantly expanding over the past years between 2002 and 2008. We operated up to 13 root servers at peak times in many European countries, such as France, Portugal, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and even one system in the United States that was operated by the founder of the ISC and BIND developer Paul Vixie. > > The main reason why ORSN is necessary is to counteract the geographically imbalance of important DNS servers. Another point is the fact that only a single nation (United States) possesses the actual power of managing the all DNS servers in the world. The ICANN root servers are still under the power of the US Commerce Department. Such important infrastructure should actually be under the leadership of a global organisation. So far there is no changed in sight. > > As in 2008 the ICANN and its operators set up AnyCast centers worldwide and copied all our 13 root servers and flooding the market by using the BGP protocol in the Internet, we decided to close down our service as we had no technology to expand our DNS rooter as fast as the ICANN. Till today all Internet users are depended on what is registered and stays registered in the servers. That's why ORSN is needed to establish an independent and transparent server for responsible and equal use for all Internet. > > And that is exactly the reason why the ORSN was again activated in June 2013. After the revelations of Edward Snowden and reports in the media about the extent of total surveillance by intelligence agencies in the United States (NSA with Prism) and the Britsh EU partner (GCHQ with Tempora) now we only learn about the degree of observation and control by this government run agencies. We don't know how far the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) is involved in previous "programs". At this point one could ask why revived the ORSN on the basis of the monitoring measures? What do we both have in common? What can the ORSN do against this? > > The simple answer to these questions is: Nothing at all! > > ORSN will have no technical possibility to disable surveillance or fight against them. But we as Internet users (community) can distance us from this system (which record our daily communications and processes) and build or own private DNS-server network which will be controlled by the community in Europe and other parts of the world. > ORSN will have the same standard of DNS information as in 2002-2008. ORSN is 100%-compatible with the ICANN root server network systems. You will not find any TLD in our database. > > There will be however a difference to ICANN. The control is located in the community and therefore in the people that makes the Internet so interesting. The people in each country who use ORSN giving their consent that their data is for public use compare to data being retrieved with out consent by the ICANN. > We hope the ORSN receives again worldwide popularity and will be able to put the trust back into the Internet and its users. > > This platform will document the entire work of the ORSN team. You can see in real time the operating States of our infrastructure. We will publish our database. ORSN focuses on transparency and on data security. Appropriate protection mechanisms will ensure that in the future no nation in the world will be deleted from the DNS. > > > 2014-01-29 JCN Global > Do not be so impatient to jump at new ideas with guns and pistols! Still I am happy to elaborate a bit on a small part of it, as many other things have to be taken in consideration here. > > ;-) > > It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. You might also have trouble to make a difference between 'norms' and 'policies'. Beyond norms and standards, there are other words that do embed values and principles. Norms and standards are for many of them technically oriented if not technically or voluntary biased. We all know that the architecture of the ONE Internet we know today was set on purpose with 'holes' that were part of a grand design - no conspiracy thinking please. Just a technical setting that reflected a political will at the time. Any technician would have considered this 'hole' has an imperfection, but this same imperfection was there on purpose - Tech is not that neutral, it often comes with a 'policy'. > > Even though that is not my best bet, I was wondering if the technical community of the Internet - on a broad scope - would find it that difficult to connect 2 Internets to each other. Or 3 Internet to each other. In other words, I was wondering about a Multinet, if the designing (or change of grand design) of a ONE Internet has reached its limits for giving way to a fair 'Law of the Internet'. I am sure than all the smart e-minds around would not find it that difficult, neither very expansive. Again, this is not my best bet to have 2, 3, 4… Internet. Just wondering. Eli Noam and others find it inevitable. I think you do remember the video conversation you guys had all together few months ago. That being said, I do not buy straight up the idea that a MULTINET would create so much frictions and increase costs for doing business, a concern Chehadé is now raising to push the US companies into some form of compromise about IG. Cheahdé, as a good player would do, has asked the Boston Consulting Group to bring some arguments against a MULTINET. This has to be debate in the open, and in details. > > According to you John, is 'Privacy' a norm or a standard? I don't see it that way. If it was so, why does Vint Cerf explains with his usual sense of 'Star Wars' humor, that privacy does not exist anymore? "Why do you guys bother about it?" Indeed he belongs to the Asymmetrics that do not have any specific consideration for 'privacy'. His business (Google's) is to exploit our privacy for the need of advertisers. Google is being copied by many, so far never been equalized or overpassed. Google did so well, that they made a fortune out of violating our privacy, destroying by the same token many independent media that suddenly were not able to compete in the face of advertisers. Good for Google though. Google brought many other tools and norms to the world, but it was not without huge returns for itself. You know that around the world there are different perceptions of privacy and the way law can consider that 'our' data, including metadata belong to each one of us. > > Regarding Internet Human Rights, please bring to the table any serious professor of law, knowing a bit of what are human rights, and see what he thinks of digital human rights. Sorry we have some good ones here in GENEVA. Have we got per say, "Print Human RIghts", or 'Phone Human Rights", or "Traveling Human Rights". Human rights cover all aspects of rights without consideration of the 'vehicle'. With the UN Human Rights charter, you already have all what you need to get anyone condemn for infringement of human rights over the Internet whether you take Freedom of expression, or any other sort of violation. You could argue that the UN could put up a case against all the big corporation that are violating 'privacy' of billion. The Human Right Council should be a good venue for this. The expression of Internet Human Rights comes from where? From my observation it came out of the US State Department. Alec Ross whom I interviewed before he quitted his job as Senior Digital Advisor to Secretary Clinton had a smile hearing my question about these 'rights' . He confessed on the record me that these Internet or Digital Human rights did not exist but that the expression was getting 'support' as you said earlier. Again, this support is very questionable, as we don't know who are the supporters, if they represent more than themselves, and, at the end of the day, if they have any legitimacy. Privacy is not specific to so-called Internet Human Rights. Privacy is an hold asset to human rights. > > Norms and standards are 'applicable', but do you understand "applicable" in the technical sense meaning 'doable'? Or 'applicable' in the sense of law, meaning possibly enforced with the intervention of justice and police force. These are complete different ideas. > > Law, national and international are part of the IG debate, and so far the Asymmetrics have managed to escape them. Law would be the ultimate villain. Law and governments. This has to come to an end, when you consider spamming, surveillance, cyberwar... > > I see the technical community as people enjoying the 'no-limit' game, or no-boundaries game. A 'Law of the Internet' would call for respect of values, common values, and not just norms and standards. > > This is one of the few points where the gap or divide between the current holders of an asymmetric IG are not ready to go. History will prove them that they are wrong by confusing norms/standards and values/law. All of them have to come together. And that requires much more TRUST, LEGITIMACY. > > Think about it John, this is only a DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGE. Asymmetrics have to accept a global demand to introduce DEMOCRACY back in the game, not just a phony 'equal footing' norm or standard, that clearly means nothing to any honest Democrat. > > > > JC > > > Le 29 janv. 2014 à 16:56, John Curran a écrit : > >> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: >> >>> Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it. >> >> JC - >> >> Regarding the scope of your hypothetical "supreme international body" (which is apparently your >> proposed solution to the present situation) - are you advocating that there be treaty body to establish >> "Law of the Internet" as opposed to recognition of the applicability of existing international norms >> to actions that now take place over the Internet? >> >> i.e. "Internet" Human Rights distinct from Human Rights, "Internet" Personal Privacy distinct >> from Personal Data Privacy rights, "Internet" Diplomatic law rather than Vienna Diplomatic >> relations, etc.? >> >> The Internet is a communications medium, and while it may have unique aspects, I am trying to >> discern whether that is the limit of the scope of your hypothetical supreme international body >> or whether it is something greater. >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Hindenburgo Francisco Pires > > Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro > Departamento de Geografia Humana > Sítio-web: http://www.cibergeo.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Sun Feb 2 21:57:08 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 21:57:08 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Request for input: draft text calling for CS input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Just a friendly reminder that if you'd like to send edits/comments on the draft letter on WSIS+10, could you please do so by end of day Monday, 3 February (EST)? The draft text is below, and additional context is in the previous email. Kind regards, Deborah Your Excellencies, We [the undersigned] are writing as members of civil society deeply engaged in Internet governance and ICT for development issues. Some/many of us have been engaged in this field since the inception of WSIS. At the outset, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as co-facilitators of the General Assembly's open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society. We [the undersigned] feel strongly that all stages of the overall WSIS review process should be open to all interested stakeholders, and as members of global civil society would welcome the opportunity to input into these informal consultations . The modalities for the overall review must embody the spirit of WSIS and the progress that has been made since 2005, as exemplified in the various multi-stakeholder processes such as the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the WSIS High Level Event and the UNESCO WSIS+10 Review Event, but also the Internet Governance Forum, the Working Group on Internet Governance, the Working Group on IGF improvements, and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. We [the undersigned] envision an overall WSIS review that renews and revives commitment to the Geneva principles' vision of a "people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society", is rooted in the international human rights framework, and builds on the achievements and addresses the challenges experienced in the 10 years since WSIS. Additionally, we believe that the overall WSIS review should seek to find synergies and synchronicities with the post-2015 development agenda, and in this context we would encourage the development of more concrete, measurable targets relating to ICTs and development. To conclude, we [the undersigned] consider it critical that the modalities of the overall WSIS review take into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and establish concrete mechanisms for civil society to channel its contributions, including through remote participation. Therefore, we, as members of global civil society, are keen to input into the informal consultations that you are facilitating and look forward to engaging more formally in the preparatory process to the overall review. Sincerely, xx On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > As you may be aware, negotiations over the modalities for the overall WSIS > review are resuming at the UN General Assembly in NY. After failing to > reach an agreement by their deadline in December, the General Assembly > decided to appoint two co-facilitators to convene open intergovernmental > consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall WSIS review (A/C.2/68/L.73-attached). It was recently announced that the co-facilitators > are *Finland* and *Tunisia*. UNGA has until the end of March to adopt a > new resolution finalizing the modalities for the WSIS review. > > As you might remember, there was an earlier draft of the resolution > introduced by the G77 (A/C.2/68/L.40- attached), which called for the > formation of an inter-governmental preparatory committee to set the agenda, > finalize the outcome documents, and decide on modalities of participation > of other stakeholders (OP22) for a 10-year review summit (OP21). This > proved to be too controversial which is in a large part why it was decided > to continue the negotiating. (See Sam Dickinson's post for more info: > http://linguasynaptica.com/unga-68-ict4d-resolution/) > > Given the approach that the draft resolution initially took, I am writing > to see if there is interest developing a joint letter to the > co-facilitators to communicate a desire by members of civil society to > engage in the overall review process and establish concrete mechanisms for > contributions. My sense is that if there is an opportunity to do so it is > now, while governments are negotiating the modalities. > > I drafted some points that could serve as the basis for a joint letter > (see below) with input from a few people who have been following the WSIS > review process, including the small group (Matthew, Lea, Joana, and myself) > that worked on some initial analysis of the early draft of the ICT4D > resolution (attached). > > The goal of this letter is to demonstrate an interest and willingness of > CS to engage in the WSIS review process now, and have the opportunity to > help shape the outcome from the beginning. * We're very interested in > your thoughts on this draft and would welcome feedback, suggested edits, > etc. by the end of your day Monday, 3 February*. If there's support, it > would be great to post the final letter on the Best Bits website for > endorsement next week. > > Here's the draft text: > > Your Excellencies, > > We are writing as members of civil society deeply engaged in Internet > governance and ICT for development issues. Some/many of us have been > engaged in this field since the inception of WSIS. At the outset, we > would like to congratulate you on your appointment as co-facilitators of > the General Assembly's open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the > modalities for the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of > the World Summit on the Information Society. > > We feel strongly that all stages of the overall WSIS review process > should be open to all interested stakeholders, and as members of global > civil society would welcome the opportunity to input into these informal > consultations . > > The modalities for the overall review must embody the spirit of WSIS and > the progress that has been made since 2005, as exemplified in the various > multi-stakeholder processes such as the Multistakeholder Preparatory > Platform for the WSIS High Level Event and the UNESCO WSIS+10 Review Event, > but also the Internet Governance Forum, the Working Group on Internet > Governance, the Working Group on IGF improvements, and the Working Group > on Enhanced Cooperation. > > We envision an overall WSIS review that renews and revives commitment to > the Geneva principles' vision of a "people-centred, inclusive, > development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society", is rooted > in the international human rights framework, and builds on the achievements > and addresses the challenges experienced in the 10 years since WSIS. Additionally, > we believe that the overall WSIS review should seek to find synergies and > synchronicities with the post-2015 development agenda, and in this > context we would encourage the development of more concrete, measurable targets > relating to ICTs and development. > > To conclude, we consider it critical that the modalities of the overall > WSIS review take into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and > establish concrete mechanisms for civil society to channel its contributions, > including through remote participation. Therefore, we, as members of > global civil society, are keen to input into the informal consultations > that you are facilitating and look forward to engaging more formally in the > preparatory process to the overall review. > > Sincerely, > > xx > > > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Mon Feb 10 18:30:17 2014 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:30:17 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Letter to co-facilitators of WSIS+10 negotiations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F849E21-D7D5-40DB-8E20-55BFF1C0EC13@apc.org> Hi Deborah, > Dear all, > > Thanks to all who have endorsed this letter already. > > A quick update here- I've been in touch with some missions in NY and I have a meeting confirmed with one of the co-facilitators for Friday, so I'll plan on delivering the letter in person. For those who are still considering signing on, can you please do so by Thursday, 13 February (end of day EST), so that I can print it ahead of the meeting? > > Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/wsis10-modalities/ We have disseminated it among our members as well. > > Also, for those interested in working on the WSIS review further, I'm wondering if we might form a fluid working group, like the various workstreams that have been set up for the Brazil meeting. It would be good to dive into the substance of what we would want the overall WSIS review to achieve. I will follow up with a separate email this week with some initial thoughts. Good idea. We might also want to consider a joint activity for the WSIS+10 High Level meeting in December this year. Valeria > > All the best, > Deborah > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > The letter to the co-facilitators of negotiations on the overall WSIS+10 review is now posted for sign on: http://bestbits.net/wsis10-modalities/ > > Thanks to all who sent feedback. I tried to incorporate all edits as much as possible. > > Please add your endorsement by Monday, 10 February. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > Letter to co-facilitators calling for civil society input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities > > February 4, 2014 > > H.E. Mr. Mohamed Khaled Khiari > Permanent Mission of Tunisia to the United Nations > 31 Beekman Place > New York, N.Y. 10022 > > H.E. Mr. Jarmo Viinanen > Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations > 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 222 > New York, N.Y. 10017 > > Your Excellencies, > > We, the undersigned, are writing as members of civil society deeply engaged in Internet governance and ICT for development issues. Many of us have been engaged in this field since the inception of World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). > > At the outset, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as co-facilitators of the General Assembly’s open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS. > > We feel strongly that all stages of the overall WSIS review process should be open to all interested stakeholders. As members of global civil society, we have been contributing to the WSIS review process that is currently underway and would welcome the opportunity to input into the informal consultations you are facilitating and serve as resources in these processes. > > The modalities for the overall review must embody the spirit of WSIS and take into account the progress and growing recognition of the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance that has been made since 2005, as exemplified by the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the WSIS High Level Event and the UNESCO WSIS+10 Review Event, but also the Internet Governance Forum, the Working Group on Internet Governance, the Working Group on IGF improvements, and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. > > We envision an overall WSIS review that renews and revives commitment to the Geneva principles’ vision of a “people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society”, is rooted in the international human rights framework, and builds on the achievements and addresses the challenges experienced in the 10 years since WSIS. > > Additionally, we would welcome efforts to find synergies and synchronicities between the overall WSIS review and the post-2015 development agenda, and in this context we would encourage the development of more concrete, measurable targets relating to ICTs and development. > > To conclude, we, the undersigned, consider it critical that the modalities of the overall WSIS review take into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and establish concrete mechanisms for civil society to channel its contributions, including through remote participation. Therefore, we, as members of global civil society, would like to request an opportunity to input into the informal consultations that you are facilitating and as well as to engage more formally in the preparatory process to the overall review. > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Feb 11 01:24:58 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:54:58 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] NSA's electronic surveillance and drone attacks Message-ID: <52F9C23A.1090206@itforchange.net> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/ the combination of extreme informational power and physical military power.... A significant structural element of the emerging world order... parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Feb 11 02:24:48 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:54:48 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?The_NSA=E2=80=99s_Secret_Role_in_the_U=2ES?= =?UTF-8?Q?=2E_Assassination_Program?= In-Reply-To: <52F940DB.30304@gmail.com> References: <52F940DB.30304@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52F9D040.5010807@ITforChange.net> I had suggested in an earlier post how NSA intelligence gathering would support illegal drone strike killings of USG..... sharing an article that confirms this surmise. Global IG Processes that limit/counter the exceptional / extraordinary role/power of the USG wrt Internet is perhaps the most important task for CS to address.... regards, Guru Source https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program By Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald < Feb 2014, 12:03 AM EST 174 The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people. According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be using. The drone operator, who agreed to discuss the top-secret programs on the condition of anonymity, was a member of JSOC’s High Value Targeting task force, which is charged with identifying, capturing or killing terrorist suspects in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere. His account is bolstered by top-secret NSA documents previously provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is also supported by a former drone sensor operator with the U.S. Air Force, Brandon Bryant, who has become an outspoken critic of the lethal operations in which he was directly involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. In one tactic, the NSA “geolocates” the SIM card or handset of a suspected terrorist’s mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the individual in possession of the device. The former JSOC drone operator is adamant that the technology has been responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have “absolutely” been killed as a result of the NSA’s increasing reliance on the surveillance tactic. One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the NSA’s reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their mobile phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to friends, children, spouses and family members. Some top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s targeting method, have purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers. “They would do things like go to meetings, take all their SIM cards out, put them in a bag, mix them up, and everybody gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former drone operator says. “That’s how they confuse us.” As a result, even when the agency correctly identifies and targets a SIM card belonging to a terror suspect, the phone may actually be carried by someone else, who is then killed in a strike. According to the former drone operator, the geolocation cells at the NSA that run the tracking program – known as Geo Cell –sometimes facilitate strikes without knowing whether the individual in possession of a tracked cell phone or SIM card is in fact the intended target of the strike. “Once the bomb lands or a night raid happens, you know that phone is there,” he says. “But we don’t know who’s behind it, who’s holding it. It’s of course assumed that the phone belongs to a human being who is nefarious and considered an ‘unlawful enemy combatant.’ This is where it gets very shady.” The former drone operator also says that he personally participated in drone strikes where the identity of the target was known, but other unknown people nearby were also killed. “They might have been terrorists,” he says. “Or they could have been family members who have nothing to do with the target’s activities.” What’s more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata. “People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” he says. “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.” The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that its operations kill terrorists with the utmost precision. In his speech at the National Defense University last May, President Obama declared that “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.” He added that, “by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.” But the increased reliance on phone tracking and other fallible surveillance tactics suggests that the opposite is true. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which uses a conservative methodology to track drone strikes, estimates that at least 273 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have been killed by unmanned aerial assaults under the Obama administration. A recent study conducted by a U.S. military adviser found that, during a single year in Afghanistan – where the majority of drone strikes have taken place – unmanned vehicles were 10 times more likely than conventional aircraft to cause civilian casualties. The NSA declined to respond to questions for this article. Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, also refused to discuss “the type of operational detail that, in our view, should not be published.” In describing the administration’s policy on targeted killings, Hayden would not say whether strikes are ever ordered without the use of human intelligence. She emphasized that “our assessments are not based on a single piece of information. We gather and scrutinize information from a variety of sources and methods before we draw conclusions.” Hayden felt free, however, to note the role that human intelligence plays /after/ a deadly strike occurs. “After any use of targeted lethal force, when there are indications that civilian deaths may have occurred, intelligence analysts draw on a large body of information – including human intelligence, signals intelligence, media reports, and surveillance footage – to help us make informed determinations about whether civilians were in fact killed or injured.” The government does not appear to apply the same standard of care in selecting whom to target for assassination. The former JSOC drone operator estimates that the overwhelming majority of high-value target operations he worked on in Afghanistan relied on signals intelligence, known as SIGINT, based on the NSA’s phone-tracking technology. “Everything they turned into a kinetic strike or a night raid was almost 90 percent that,” he says. “You could tell, because you’d go back to the mission reports and it will say ‘this mission was triggered by SIGINT,’ which means it was triggered by a geolocation cell.” In July, the /Washington Post/ relied exclusively on former senior U.S. intelligence officials and anonymous sources to herald the NSA’s claims about its effectiveness at geolocating terror suspects. Within the NSA, the paper reported , “A motto quickly caught on at Geo Cell: ‘We Track ’Em, You Whack ’Em.’” But the /Post/ article included virtually no skepticism about the NSA’s claims, and no discussion at all about how the unreliability of the agency’s targeting methods results in the killing of innocents. In fact, as the former JSOC drone operator recounts, tracking people by metadata and then killing them by SIM card is inherently flawed. The NSA “will develop a pattern,” he says, “where they understand that this is what this person’s voice sounds like, this is who his friends are, this is who his commander is, this is who his subordinates are. And they put them into a matrix. But it’s not always correct. There’s a lot of human error in that.” The JSOC operator’s account is supported by another insider who was directly involved in the drone program. Brandon Bryant spent six years as a “stick monkey” – a drone sensor operator who controls the “eyes” of the U.S. military’s unmanned aerial vehicles. By the time he left the Air Force in 2011, Bryant’s squadron, which included a small crew of veteran drone operators, had been credited with killing 1,626 “enemies” in action. Bryant says he has come forward because he is tormented by the loss of civilian life he believes that he and his squadron may have caused. Today he is committed to informing the public about lethal flaws in the U.S. drone program. Bryant describes the program as highly compartmentalized: Drone operators taking shots at targets on the ground have little idea where the intelligence is coming from. “I don’t know who we worked with,” Bryant says. “We were never privy to that sort of information. If the NSA did work with us, like, I have no clue.” During the course of his career, Bryant says, many targets of U.S. drone strikes evolved their tactics, particularly in the handling of cell phones. “They’ve gotten really smart now and they don’t make the same mistakes as they used to,” he says. “They’d get rid of the SIM card and they’d get a new phone, or they’d put the SIM card in the new phone.” As the former JSOC drone operator describes – and as classified documents obtained from Snowden confirm – the NSA doesn’t just locate the cell phones of terror suspects by intercepting communications from cell phone towers and Internet service providers. The agency also equips drones and other aircraft with devices known as “virtual base-tower transceivers” – creating, in effect, a fake cell phone tower that can force a targeted person’s device to lock onto the NSA’s receiver without their knowledge. That, in turn, allows the military to track the cell phone to within 30 feet of its actual location, feeding the real-time data to teams of drone operators who conduct missile strikes or facilitate night raids. The NSA geolocation system used by JSOC is known by the code name GILGAMESH. Under the program, a specially constructed device is attached to the drone. As the drone circles, the device locates the SIM card or handset that the military believes is used by the target. DT 1 Relying on this method, says the former JSOC drone operator, means that the “wrong people” could be killed due to metadata errors, particularly in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. “We don’t have people on the ground –we don’t have the same forces, informants, or information coming in from those areas – as we do where we have a strong foothold, like we do in Afghanistan. I would say that it’s even more likely that mistakes are made in places such as Yemen or Somalia, and especially Pakistan.” As of May 2013, according to the former drone operator, President Obama had cleared 16 people in Yemen and five in Somalia for targeting in strikes. Before a strike is green-lit, he says, there must be at least two sources of intelligence. The problem is that both of those sources often involve NSA-supplied data, rather than human intelligence (HUMINT). As the former drone operator explains, the process of tracking and ultimately killing a targeted person is known within the military as F3: Find, Fix, Finish. “Since there’s almost zero HUMINT operations in Yemen – at least involving JSOC – every one of their strikes relies on signals and imagery for confirmation: signals being the cell phone lock, which is the ‘find’ and imagery being the ‘unblinking eye’ which is the ‘fix.’” The “finish” is the strike itself. “JSOC acknowledges that it would be completely helpless without the NSA conducting mass surveillance on an industrial level,” the former drone operator says. “That is what creates those baseball cards you hear about,” featuring potential targets for drone strikes or raids. President Obama signs authorizations for “hits” that remain valid for 60 days. If a target cannot be located within that period, it must be reviewed and renewed. According to the former drone operator, it can take 18 months or longer to move from intelligence gathering to getting approval to actually carrying out a strike in Yemen. “What that tells me,” he says, “is that commanders, once given the authorization needed to strike, are more likely to strike when they see an opportunity – even if there’s a high chance of civilians being killed, too – because in their mind they might never get the chance to strike that target again.” While drones are not the only method used to kill targets, they have become so prolific that they are now a standard part of U.S. military culture. Remotely piloted Reaper and Predator vehicles are often given nicknames. Among those used in Afghanistan, says the former JSOC drone operator, were “Lightning” and “Sky Raider.” The latter drone, he adds, was also referred to as “Sky Raper,” for a simple reason – “because it killed a lot of people.” When operators were assigned to “Sky Raper,” he adds, it meant that “somebody was going to die. It was always set to the most high-priority missions.” In addition to the GILGAMESH system used by JSOC, the CIA uses a similar NSA platform known as SHENANIGANS. The operation – previously undisclosed – utilizes a pod on aircraft that vacuums up massive amounts of data from any wireless routers, computers, smart phones or other electronic devices that are within range. One top-secret NSA document provided by Snowden is written by a SHENANIGANS operator who documents his March 2012 deployment to Oman, where the CIA has established a drone base. The operator describes how, from almost four miles in the air, he searched for communications devices believed to be used by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in neighboring Yemen.The mission was code named VICTORYDANCE. “The VICTORYDANCE mission was a great experience,” the operator writes. “It was truly a joint interagency effort between CIA and NSA. Flights and targets were coordinated with both CIAers and NSAers. The mission lasted 6 months, during which 43 flights were flown.” VICTORYDANCE, he adds, “mapped the Wi-Fi fingerprint of nearly every major town in Yemen.” DT 5 DT 6 The NSA has played an increasingly central role in drone killings over the past five years. In one top-secret NSA document from 2010, the head of the agency’s Strategic Planning and Policy Division of the Counterterrorism Mission Management Center recounts the history of the NSA’s involvement in Yemen. Shortly before President Obama took office, the document reveals, the agency began to “shift analytic resources to focus on Yemen.” In 2008, the NSA had only three analysts dedicated to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. By the fall of 2009, it had 45 analysts, and the agency was producing “high quality” signal intelligence for the CIA and JSOC. In December 2009, utilizing the NSA’s metadata collection programs, the Obama administration dramatically escalated U.S. drone and cruise missile strikes in Yemen. The first strike in the country known to be authorized by Obama targeted an alleged Al Qaeda camp in the southern village of al-Majala. The strike, which included the use of cluster bombs, resulted in the deaths of 14 women and 21 children. It is not clear whether the strike was based on metadata collection; the White House has never publicly explained the strike or the source of the faulty intelligence that led to the civilian fatalities. Another top-secret NSA document confirms that the agency “played a key supporting role” in the drone strike in September 2011 that killed U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as another American, Samir Khan. According to the 2013 Congressional Budget Justification, “The CIA tracked [Awlaki] for three weeks before a joint operation with the U.S. military killed” the two Americans in Yemen, along with two other people. When Brandon Bryant left his Air Force squadron in April 2011, the unit was aiding JSOC in its hunt for the American-born cleric. The CIA took the lead in the hunt for Awlaki after JSOC tried and failed to kill him in the spring of 2011. DT 4 According to Bryant, the NSA’s expanded role in Yemen has only added to what he sees as the risk of fatal errors already evident in CIA operations. “They’re very non-discriminate with how they do things, as far as you can see their actions over in Pakistan and the devastation that they’ve had there,” Bryant says about the CIA. “It feels like they tried to bring those same tactics they used over in Pakistan down to Yemen. It’s a repeat of tactical thinking, instead of intelligent thinking.” T hose within the system understand that the government’s targeting tactics are fundamentally flawed. According to the former JSOC drone operator, instructors who oversee GILGAMESH training emphasize: “‘This isn’t a science. This is an art.’ It’s kind of a way of saying that it’s not perfect.” Yet the tracking “pods” mounted on the bottom of drones have facilitated thousands of “capture or kill” operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan since September 11. One top-secret NSA document provided by Snowden notes that by 2009, “for the first time in the history of the U.S. Air Force, more pilots were trained to fly drones … than conventional fighter aircraft,” leading to a “‘tipping point’ in U.S. military combat behavior in resorting to air strikes in areas of undeclared wars,” such as Yemen and Pakistan. The document continues: “Did you ever think you would see the day when the U.S. would be conducting combat operations in a country equipped with nuclear weapons without a boot on the ground or a pilot in the air?” Even NSA operatives seem to recognize how profoundly the agency’s tracking technology deviates from standard operating methods of war. One NSA document from 2005 poses this question: “What resembles ‘LITTLE BOY’ (one of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during World War II) and as LITTLE BOY did, represents the dawn of a new era (at least in SIGINT and precision geolocation)?” Its reply: “If you answered a pod mounted on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) that is currently flying in support of the Global War on Terrorism, you would be correct.” DT 3 Another document boasts that geolocation technology has “cued and compressed numerous ‘kill chains’ (i.e. all of the steps taken to find, track, target, and engage the enemy), resulting in untold numbers of enemy killed and captured in Afghanistan as well as the saving of U.S. and Coalition lives.” The former JSOC drone operator, however, remains highly disturbed by the unreliability of such methods. Like other whistleblowers, including Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, he says that his efforts to alert his superiors to the problems were brushed off. “The system continues to work because, like most things in the military, the people who use it trust it unconditionally,” he says. When he would raise objections about intelligence that was “rushed” or “inaccurate” or “outright wrong,” he adds, “the most common response I would get was ‘JSOC wouldn’t spend millions and millions of dollars, and man hours, to go after someone if they weren’t certain that they were the right person.’ There is a saying at the NSA: ‘SIGINT never lies.’It may be true that SIGINT never lies, but it’s subject to human error.” The government’s assassination program is actually constructed, he adds, to avoid self-correction. “They make rushed decisions and are often wrong in their assessments. They jump to conclusions and there is no going back to correct mistakes.” Because there is an ever-increasing demand for more targets to be added to the kill list, he says, the mentality is “just keep feeding the beast.” For Bryant, the killing of Awlaki – followed two weeks later by the killing of his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al Awlaki, also an American citizen – motivated him to speak out. Last October, Bryant appeared before a panel of experts at the United Nations – including the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, who is currently conducting an investigation into civilians killed by drone strikes. Dressed in hiking boots and brown cargo pants, Bryant called for “independent investigations” into the Obama administration’s drone program. “At the end of our pledge of allegiance, we say ‘with liberty and justice for all,’” he told the panel. “I believe that should be applied to not only American citizens, but everyone that we interact with as well, to put them on an equal level and to treat them with respect.” Unlike those who oversee the drone program, Bryant also took personal responsibility for his actions in the killing of Awlaki. “I was a drone operator for six years, active duty for six years in the U.S. Air Force, and I was party to the violations of constitutional rights of an American citizen who should have been tried under a jury,” he said. “And because I violated that constitutional right, I became an enemy of the American people.” Bryant later told /The Intercept/, “I had to get out because we were told that the president wanted Awlaki dead. And I wanted him dead. I was told that he was a traitor to our country…. I didn’t really understand that our Constitution covers people, American citizens, who have betrayed our country. They still deserve a trial.” The killing of Awlaki and his son still haunt Bryant. The younger Awlaki, Abdulrahman, had run away from home to try to find his dad, whom he had not seen in three years. But his father was killed before Abdulrahman could locate him. Abdulrahman was then killed in a separate strike two weeks later as he ate dinner with his teenage cousin and some friends. The White House has never explained the strike. “I don’t think there’s any day that goes by when I don’t think about those two, to be honest,” Bryant says. “The kid doesn’t seem like someone who would be a suicide bomber or want to die or something like that. He honestly seems like a kid who missed his dad and went there to go see his dad.” Last May, President Obama acknowledged that “the necessary secrecy” involved in lethal strikes “can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.” But that, says the former JSOC operator, is precisely what has happened. Given how much the government now relies on drone strikes – and given how many of those strikes are now dependent on metadata rather than human intelligence – the operator warns that political officials may view the geolocation program as more dependable than it really is. “I don’t know whether or not President Obama would be comfortable approving the drone strikes if he knew the potential for mistakes that are there,” he says. “All he knows is what he’s told.” Whether or not Obama is fully aware of the errors built into the program of targeted assassination, he and his top advisors have repeatedly made clear that the president himself directly oversees the drone operation and takes full responsibility for it. Obama once reportedly told his aides that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people.” The president added, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Feb 11 04:59:48 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:59:48 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF 2014 Consultation - ISOC Submission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52F9F494.9030206@ciroap.org> This is a BIG step for ISOC. Finally they are suggesting the IGF produce policy outcome documents open for voluntary adoption, based on the IETF process... something they had been fiercely resisting for years! I have been critical of ISOC in the past for not taking this step and for obstructing similar such proposals (my own and others)... but better late than never, and we should give credit where credit is due. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Internet Policy] IGF 2014 Consultation - ISOC Submission Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:40:15 +0000 From: Constance Bommelaer To: Internet Policy External Dear Members, In preparation of Friday's Webinar, please find attached The Internet Society's recent submission to the IGF 2014 Consultation. The core of the proposal is to enable the 2014 IGF event to produce policy outcome documents open for voluntary adoption. In order to get there, it is suggested to seek inspiration from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in terms of producing outcome documents based on voluntary adoption and starting substantive inter-sessional work. The proposal also suggests reviving Best Practice Forums and introducing Bird of a Feather-type sessions. We are looking forward to Friday's discussion (details below), which will precede the next IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings (19-20 Feb. Geneva: http://www.intgovforum.org/). Best regards, Constance From: Constance Bommelaer > Date: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:38 PM To: Internet Policy External > Subject: [Internet Policy] Invitation - ISOC Webinar on the IGF, 14 Feb. 13:30 UTC Dear Members, 2013 was a pivotal year for the Internet. The revelations around digital surveillance have raised questions around crucial issues such as individual rights, privacy and the role of governments. This increasingly complex scenario is creating important challenges, as well as new opportunities for the open, multistakeholder model of Internet governance. This year promises to be even more important. To share insights and discuss preparations for the 2014 Internet Governance Forum (2-5 Sept., Istanbul, Turkey; http://www.intgovforum.org/ ), we would like to invite you to join an ISOC Webinar *_on 14 Feb., at 13:30 UTC_*. The intent is to start preparing for the meeting, in light of the broader Internet governance landscape. We are looking forward to the discussion! Best regards, -- Constance Bommelaer Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships The Internet Society www.isoc.org *Meeting information * ------------------------------------------------------- Topic: ISOC Webinar on IGF 2014 Date: Friday, February 14, 2014 Time: 2:30 pm, Europe Time (Paris, GMT+01:00) Meeting Number: 926 451 896 Meeting Password: 2014Ge ------------------------------------------------------- To start or join the online meeting ------------------------------------------------------- Go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=mf181a66ad82076a2306b31600d14a765 ------------------------------------------------------- Audio conference information ------------------------------------------------------- Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208 Global call-in numbers: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=270619992&tollFree=0 Access code:926 451 896 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=mebf08e4f2f21d61ebde02c67424838bc To check whether you have the appropriate players installed for UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files, go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/systemdiagnosis.php. http://www.webex.com CCM:+16504793208x926451896# IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. You should inform all meeting attendees prior to recording if you intend to record the meeting. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ISOC-IGF.Consultation-Feb2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 131398 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Feb 11 06:17:15 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:17:15 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial co-chairs Message-ID: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp> Congratulations to Jeanette in particular :-) Sao Paulo, February 10, 2014 - In alignment with the multistakeholder spirit of the meeting, the Chairman of the NETmundial, Professor Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, has invited distinguished names to co-chair and lead the NETmundial organization. From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Feb 11 07:07:22 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:37:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF 2014 Consultation - ISOC Submission In-Reply-To: <52F9F494.9030206@ciroap.org> References: <52F9F494.9030206@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52FA127A.7020609@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 11 February 2014 03:29 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This is a BIG step for ISOC. Finally they are suggesting the IGF > produce policy outcome documents open for voluntary adoption, based on > the IETF process... something they had been fiercely resisting for years! Public policies are not technical standards to be voluntarily adopted... (even technical standards have often to be mandatory - as you know Microsoft for instance will never - and did not - voluntarily adopt inter operability standards for document software) ... This is an entirely new kind of political-ese to talk of voluntary adoption of public policies, which is post-democratic in essence. These are frameworks for working outside democratic politics. Voluntary adoption of public policies is similar to 'coalition of the willing' for political action and I am sure you know what it means and implies.. Th powerful shall inherit the world.... Everyone can see what slope we are slipping on.. parminder > > I have been critical of ISOC in the past for not taking this step and > for obstructing similar such proposals (my own and others)... but better > late than never, and we should give credit where credit is due. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Internet Policy] IGF 2014 Consultation - ISOC Submission > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:40:15 +0000 > From: Constance Bommelaer > To: Internet Policy External > > > > Dear Members, > > In preparation of Friday's Webinar, please find attached The Internet > Society's recent submission to the IGF 2014 Consultation. > > The core of the proposal is to enable the 2014 IGF event to produce > policy outcome documents open for voluntary adoption. In order to get > there, it is suggested to seek inspiration from the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF) in terms of producing outcome documents based on > voluntary adoption and starting substantive inter-sessional work. The > proposal also suggests reviving Best Practice Forums and introducing > Bird of a Feather-type sessions. > > We are looking forward to Friday's discussion (details below), which > will precede the next IGF Open Consultations and MAG meetings (19-20 > Feb. Geneva: http://www.intgovforum.org/). > > Best regards, > Constance > > > From: Constance Bommelaer > > Date: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:38 PM > To: Internet Policy External > > Subject: [Internet Policy] Invitation - ISOC Webinar on the IGF, 14 Feb. > 13:30 UTC > > Dear Members, > > 2013 was a pivotal year for the Internet. The revelations around digital > surveillance have raised questions around crucial issues such as > individual rights, privacy and the role of governments. This > increasingly complex scenario is creating important challenges, as well > as new opportunities for the open, multistakeholder model of Internet > governance. > > This year promises to be even more important. To share insights and > discuss preparations for the 2014 Internet Governance Forum (2-5 Sept., > Istanbul, Turkey; http://www.intgovforum.org/ ), we would like to invite > you to join an ISOC Webinar *_on 14 Feb., at 13:30 UTC_*. The intent is > to start preparing for the meeting, in light of the broader Internet > governance landscape. > > We are looking forward to the discussion! > > > Best regards, > From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 08:05:45 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:35:45 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0b7b01cf272a$123ef7e0$36bce7a0$@gmail.com> Hi Anja, Inline From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:03 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG Dear Michael, 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. [MG>] I’d be very interested to see this However, I think it is important to distinguish between decentralization of processes and decentralization of power the first without the second is simply making busywork my feeling is that much of discussion that you are pointing to is concerned with this Decentralizing/deconcentrating centralized power comes not through decentralizing processes but through challenging and contesting for power – a situation where “decentralization” of one’s forces would seem to be a recipe for failure 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. [MG>] Potentially interesting but again I’d like to see the details 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. [MG>] Potentially true particularly if there was something more than busywork processes involved in these multiple venues, but again need details (there were none in the short paper that you pointed to, which was part of the reason for my reacting as I did As an example, the challenge in the WIPO discussions I believe, was to create a real venue for LDC participation and get away from the multiple empty technical and narrowly focused discussions that (were deliberately designed?) to sap the LDC energies and resources it was only when the LDC’s insisted on a specific framework to address their issues that any real progress (from their perspective) was achieved.. Amorphous processes and venues, in which all issues are clubbed together, are a minus, not a plus for the developing world. [MG>] Not necessarily, if the issue is a real contest about real issues 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. [MG>] yes, but solidarity around what exactly solidarity in support of exclusionary and non-transparent or accountable processes? solidarity in support of CS appointees who act as tacit or even active supporters of these processes? solidarity around CS prioritizing Human Rights but denying equivalent support for Equity and Social Justice That hardly seems like a useful strategy for marginalized groups or anyone else in CS with a real concern for how these things are developing, for that matter. Best, M Best, Anja On 8 February 2014 11:01, michael gurstein wrote: Anja, 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). M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:10 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG Hi Michael, Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent earlier, I felt compelled to respond directly. 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) "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" 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. 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). 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. All the best, Anja On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein wrote: 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 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. 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. 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. 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 whatever it takes 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. This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense. Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear all, I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below: On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: /SNIP/ 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?! 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: http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. 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. 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. Best, Anja ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilia Maciel Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Hi Andrew and all, 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. 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. - 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. - 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... - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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 - 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. - 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. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília Cheers Anne On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: 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. 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. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance 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. ... The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku best bits meeting -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Three examples might be: 1. Net neutrality 2. Protection for personal privacy 3. Affordable access 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. I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for this in a two day conference 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. 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. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. Click here to report this email as spam. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 08:05:46 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:35:46 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <20140209200812.40d02420@quill> Message-ID: <0b8001cf272a$180675e0$481361a0$@gmail.com> While somewhat agreeing with what you say below I would add the need to protect against the capture of CS and other elements in those processes through ensuring full transparency and effective structures of accountability. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:20 AM To: Norbert Bollow Cc: IGC; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) I agree with much of what Ian and Avri had to say. The reason I am still putting my bet on exploring multistakeholderism in greater detail is because, as I have mentioned before, the defining differences here are that civil society in that system would also be guaranteed a place around the table if it so desired (i.e. corporations wouldn't be the only ones), and that governments would have to account for what they do with the inputs provided, rather than those inputs just disappearing into what sometimes seems like a black box. If we can make those things stick, I think that is a major gain for people's democracy, not a loss. Corporate power is not the only obstacle in the way of such a vision succeeding though. It also requires a new kind of organising among civil society, including by working through and addressing the very real power imbalances within civil society. That is our responsibility. Whether or not we'll be able to step up to the challenge is a wait and see, but I for one would like us to try. Anja On 10 February 2014 00:38, Norbert Bollow wrote: Ian Peter wrote: > Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get posted on the IGC and BestBits lists. Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms against capture and other forms of undue influence by special interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough crossposting problem) already. Greetings, Norbert > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for > the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly > take these realities of particular interests (which are often in > conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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 whatever it takes 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. > > > > > > > > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple > > common sense. > > > > > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been > > telling us? > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja > > Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > > To: Anne Jellema > > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); > > genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive > > proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few > > comments below: > > > > > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema > > wrote: > > > > /SNIP/ > > > > 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?! > > > > > > > > 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: > > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised > > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Marilia Maciel > > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit > > - IG governance > > To: Andrew Puddephatt > > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > - 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... > > > > > > > > - 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: > > > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > > > 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? > > > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back > > to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > > > 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). > > > > 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? > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and > > hoping we can continue the discussions. > > > > Thanks again for the good start > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin > > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > —Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 08:05:47 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:35:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com> Tks Anja. I'll look forward to hearing back concerning the set of questions that I posed either from you or directly from responsible others in 1Net. It would be good to put this matter to rest sooner rather than later. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:31 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Hi Michael and all, Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more about how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were shared with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how to improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have been requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a user to interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for that particular user the experience would actually not be very different than it is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the weeks to come. Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more. Best, Anja On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein wrote: A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning of 1Net (certainly by myself). My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful response. M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein wrote: Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy outcomes of that, and future, events. Regards David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 08:05:47 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:35:47 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Letter to co-facilitators of WSIS+10 negotiations In-Reply-To: <6F849E21-D7D5-40DB-8E20-55BFF1C0EC13@apc.org> References: <6F849E21-D7D5-40DB-8E20-55BFF1C0EC13@apc.org> Message-ID: <0b9a01cf272a$2f7f3810$8e7da830$@gmail.com> The Community Informatics community has formed a WSIS +10 working group and would be interested in participating in all WSIS +10 associated initiatives. I’m not sure that the Working Group/CI community will sign on to the letter but individual members of course may do so. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Valeria Betancourt Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:00 AM To: Deborah Brown Cc: Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update: Letter to co-facilitators of WSIS+10 negotiations Hi Deborah, Dear all, Thanks to all who have endorsed this letter already. A quick update here- I've been in touch with some missions in NY and I have a meeting confirmed with one of the co-facilitators for Friday, so I'll plan on delivering the letter in person. For those who are still considering signing on, can you please do so by Thursday, 13 February (end of day EST), so that I can print it ahead of the meeting? Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/wsis10-modalities/ We have disseminated it among our members as well. Also, for those interested in working on the WSIS review further, I'm wondering if we might form a fluid working group, like the various workstreams that have been set up for the Brazil meeting. It would be good to dive into the substance of what we would want the overall WSIS review to achieve. I will follow up with a separate email this week with some initial thoughts. Good idea. We might also want to consider a joint activity for the WSIS+10 High Level meeting in December this year. Valeria All the best, Deborah On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: Dear all, The letter to the co-facilitators of negotiations on the overall WSIS+10 review is now posted for sign on: http://bestbits.net/wsis10-modalities/ Thanks to all who sent feedback. I tried to incorporate all edits as much as possible. Please add your endorsement by Monday, 10 February. Kind regards, Deborah Letter to co-facilitators calling for civil society input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities February 4, 2014 H.E. Mr. Mohamed Khaled Khiari Permanent Mission of Tunisia to the United Nations 31 Beekman Place New York, N.Y. 10022 H.E. Mr. Jarmo Viinanen Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 222 New York, N.Y. 10017 Your Excellencies, We, the undersigned, are writing as members of civil society deeply engaged in Internet governance and ICT for development issues. Many of us have been engaged in this field since the inception of World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). At the outset, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as co-facilitators of the General Assembly’s open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS. We feel strongly that all stages of the overall WSIS review process should be open to all interested stakeholders. As members of global civil society, we have been contributing to the WSIS review process that is currently underway and would welcome the opportunity to input into the informal consultations you are facilitating and serve as resources in these processes. The modalities for the overall review must embody the spirit of WSIS and take into account the progress and growing recognition of the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance that has been made since 2005, as exemplified by the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the WSIS High Level Event and the UNESCO WSIS+10 Review Event, but also the Internet Governance Forum, the Working Group on Internet Governance, the Working Group on IGF improvements, and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. We envision an overall WSIS review that renews and revives commitment to the Geneva principles’ vision of a “people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society”, is rooted in the international human rights framework, and builds on the achievements and addresses the challenges experienced in the 10 years since WSIS. Additionally, we would welcome efforts to find synergies and synchronicities between the overall WSIS review and the post-2015 development agenda, and in this context we would encourage the development of more concrete, measurable targets relating to ICTs and development. To conclude, we, the undersigned, consider it critical that the modalities of the overall WSIS review take into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and establish concrete mechanisms for civil society to channel its contributions, including through remote participation. Therefore, we, as members of global civil society, would like to request an opportunity to input into the informal consultations that you are facilitating and as well as to engage more formally in the preparatory process to the overall review. -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Feb 3 05:38:58 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 18:38:58 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> Message-ID: <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> On 3 Feb 2014, at 3:51 am, Ian Peter wrote: > Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask to aid industry dominance with no governmental involvement whatsoever. And here the dominant industry players often find willing supporters in the technical community. I think civil society needs to be clear that, if it supports multistakeholderism, it is not giving support to no governmental involvement at all or to unregulated industry dominance. I think this is a real debate we have to have. > > And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all stakeholders have equal power in this – civil society arguments do not carry the weight of the large internet corporations, and to pretend that ms-ism somehow changes this imbalance is either naive or deliberately misleading. > > I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way the agenda is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles for governance, and this word multistakeholderism is going to be front and centre. I think we need to unwrap it a little and state clearly that the real issues going on are between governmental and industry control, neither of which of itself is of itself a satisfactory model. Brilliantly put Ian. Agree that this will be a key differentiator between what civil society puts forward for the meeting and what (if anything) 1net may put forward. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Feb 11 11:05:21 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:05:21 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] IGF 2014 Consultation - ISOC Submission In-Reply-To: <52FA127A.7020609@itforchange.net> References: <52F9F494.9030206@ciroap.org> <52FA127A.7020609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <341CBE89-38E7-4927-BCC8-597AADBB277B@ciroap.org> On 11 Feb 2014, at 8:07 pm, parminder wrote: > On Tuesday 11 February 2014 03:29 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> This is a BIG step for ISOC. Finally they are suggesting the IGF >> produce policy outcome documents open for voluntary adoption, based on >> the IETF process... something they had been fiercely resisting for years! > > Public policies are not technical standards to be voluntarily adopted... (even technical standards have often to be mandatory - as you know Microsoft for instance will never - and did not - voluntarily adopt inter operability standards for document software) ... This is an entirely new kind of political-ese to talk of voluntary adoption of public policies, which is post-democratic in essence. These are frameworks for working outside democratic politics. Voluntary adoption of public policies is similar to 'coalition of the willing' for political action and I am sure you know what it means and implies.. Th powerful shall inherit the world.... > > Everyone can see what slope we are slipping on.. Baby steps, this is still a paradigm shift for ISOC. What begins with voluntarily-adopted soft law can harden into national and international law where necessary... at least now, finally, we are on a path that could lead somewhere. I'm not going to criticise them for taking this step. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Tue Feb 11 11:07:57 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:07:57 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial co-chairs In-Reply-To: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp> References: <3937ED7A-7C89-446E-86AD-1F3F86D33602@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: +1 Excellent news Antonio Medina Gómez Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2014-02-11 6:17 GMT-05:00 Adam Peake : > Congratulations to Jeanette in particular :-) > > > > > Sao Paulo, February 10, 2014 - In alignment with the multistakeholder > spirit of the meeting, the Chairman of the NETmundial, Professor Virgílio > Fernandes Almeida, has invited distinguished names to co-chair and lead the > NETmundial organization. > > From the academia, Jeanette Hofmann: an expert on internet governance, > senior researcher at Social Science Research Center Berlin for Social > Research (WZB), Research Officer at London School of Economics and > Political Science, and also professor at Humboldt - University of Berlin. > > As part of the civil society, Subi Chaturvedi is an activist-academician, > from Delhi University, and also an active research scholar at the Indian > Institute of technology (IIT-D). As a media critic she writes extensively > on best practices on Internet governance and the way forward through a > bottoms up, inclusive, multistakeholder, approach to preserve core internet > values. > > Representing the private sector, Andile Ngcaba is chairman, founder and > majority shareholder of investment group Convergence Partners. > > Complementing the group and representing the technical community is Fadi > Chehade, President and CEO of ICANN, that holds more than 25 years of > experience in building and leading progressive Internet enterprises. > > Together, the multistakeholder chairmanship will ensure coordination among > all the committees and the success of the conference. They will have their > first meeting this Friday, February 14th, where they will discuss further > coordination mechanisms, document drafting process, among other internal > details. > > END > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Feb 12 10:06:23 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:06:23 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Communication of the European Commisson: "Internet Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet Governance" Message-ID: [ Apologies for cross-posting. Please share as you deem appropriate ] Dear all, I would like to let you know that today (12 February 2013) the European Commission has adopted its formal policy position on Internet governance, via a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: "Internet Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of Internet governance" (COM(2014) 72/4). The press release of the adoption is available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm . The text of the Communication is available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453. The statement by Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, is available at http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?ref=I086325 . I hope you find this information useful and the content of the Communication interesting. Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Feb 12 15:45:31 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:15:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: <0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com> <0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, As I had promised, I asked Adiel to shed further light on the financing of the website/forum and the summary. Please find my email, and Adiel's detailed reply below. I have asked him to further clarify who the "some of us" are who wrote the second summary he refers to, but in the interest of time thought I'll share the below response with you already. I hope this answers many of the questions that were raised. Best wishes, Anja On 12 February 2014 02:21, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > Hello Anja, > > On 2014-02-11, at 01:59 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Thanks for all the ongoing work on the website and the transformation of > the summaries on the forum. These are important and positive steps in > responding to some of the questions and criticisms that have been raised. > > > > Within civil society, some people have been wondering, though, how the > work for both is being funded, and also who exactly is doing it. I think > these are fair enough questions, and that it would be important to provide > an answer to them as part of our efforts to improve transparency. > > > > Adiel, could you therefore clarify who exactly prepared the summary (I > had presumed it was you but my apologies if I was wrong!), and how this was > supported financially, if at all? Similarly for the website, who designed > and developed it, and where did the idea for a forum come from? And how > was/is the website funded? > > > > I think it is valuable for the members of the SC as well to have a bit > more of a sense of these issues. My apologies if you already clarified this > in the first part of the call last week, but if not, it would be great if > you could do so here. > > > Thanks for your email which has some fair and reasonable questions. > > To start, I would like to reinsure you and all form the Civil Society that > this is and has always been a collective effort to move /1net from just a > mailing list into something more coherent and structured. > > The goal of course is to have the participants organise themselves and > make /1net what it should be by identifying issues and work together to > collectively find solutions and/or ideas. But as with anything in life, and > particularly in self organised environment there is always work to be done > behind the scenes to ensure that the momentum is kept, and it is perfectly > reasonable for people to request who is doing that. But at the same time > people should remember where the whole initiative started from (and it > seems to me like people suddenly decide to forget it). > > The short answer is that there have been two main contributions: that of > time and of finances. Time has of course come from a wide range of > participants but in terms of organisational effort much of it has come from > individuals within some of the I* organisations that signed the Montevideo > Declaration (particularly AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, RIPE-NCC and ICANN). > > The unseen work of /1net to date such as organising meetings, setting up > mailing lists, registering domains, setting up the website have been done > by a range of different staff in those organisations. For example, AFRINIC > as NRO secretariat ran the first mailing list, and we use AFRINIC's web > conferencing facilities to have calls and coordinate that, RIPE-NCC staff > work with the hosting company on the transfer of the mailing list from > nor.net to 1net.org, AFRINIC staff has developed the mailing list > statistic tools and currently helping with some of the logistic of the > steering committee all of that voluntarily as part of their job in our > different organisations. If you look at the Whois for 1net.org you will > see that AFRINIC took over the domain after the first launch of the web > site (I am the individual officially named as the registrant) and ICANN is > the tech administrator. I have been using my time to coordinate the web > site evolution with a team made of staff of a web hosting company and > ICANN's communication staff, but they don't do anything that has not been > approved by myself. They have also implemented the new forum which, some > within the volunteers I* organisations and others in the broader Internet > community offered to help road-test before it was officially launched. I > have been having a weekly coordination meeting with them after the first > launch (where there was some technical IPv6 and DNSSEC and other issues > which I and others worked on with them to fix). The cost of hosting the web > site and its development is currently provided by ICANN. > > Gradually coordinating the work behind the scene on these aspects is being > transitioned to the Steering Committee whose representatives have been > chosen by different stakeholder groups themselves. For example, the > Steering Committee also was provided with a link to test out the forum and > the new web site a few days before it went live so they could provide > feedback. That will be the systematic approach going forward. > > In terms of the summaries produced, there have been two. Staff at APNIC > produced the first, giving a statistical analysis of discussions on the > mailing list. That was well received and at the same time many participants > made it clear they were having troubling following events so consensus was > quickly reached that a summary of content would be useful. The Steering > Committee agreed so we moved ahead. The second summary was a collaboration > of a number of us, most of whom had helped with previous /1net efforts. But > I had the final sign-off (and I shared a version with the SC). As I > mentioned on the mailing list this is an attempt to help, and nothing in > the summary is to be considered conclusive so can be challenged by anyone > if the find it inaccurate. I have also heard the suggestion on the list to > have a collaborative editing platform to produce the summary. My idea is > still to have a draft that people will play around with. I'm not sure just > letting the group as I see it developing every summary from scratch will > work effectively (my personal view). > > Going forward, we will continue to have have the automated mailing list > reports and possibly weekly summaries, depending on whether the lists > themselves show the ability to self-summarise. > > As proposed last week and discussed during the last conference call, I > think the Steering Committee need to organise itself to take over these > tasks starting with the Communications and Community engagement group. The > idea seems to have the support of the Steering Committee last week. So that > is a positive and important step. The team is expected to be comprised of a > number of professional communicators and Steering Committee members. The > members aren't decided yet but we'll announce them once they are. > > My expectation is that the communications team will make recommendations > to the Steering Committee about the things you reference: summaries, > website and so on. And it will be up to the Steering Committee to decide > how to proceed. > > While here, there are two other things I would like to bring your > attention. Firstly, all efforts behind the scenes are focused on how to > assist participants in arriving at solutions to issues that are identified > by participants themselves. It is a true support role in that respect. > Nothing else. As you may have noticed I ahve refrain myself posting > directly on some of the issues being discussed not to be seen as directing > the debate or having any particular hidden agenda. I have heard enough! > > Secondly, while some of us from the I* organisations have shouldered much > of the cost in terms of both time and money of /1net so far, the intention > going forward is for many other organisations to contribute to get this > running. The initiative can not sustain itself without all these > contributions. > > At the moment we are focussed on preparations for the Brazil meeting but > soon after that, we hope that /1net will have provided sufficient value and > worth that others are keen to support this initiative going forward. > > I hope that answers all your questions. If you or others have ideas, > suggestions, offers of help and so on I would be happy to hear them. > > Thanks. > > - a. > > > _______________________________________________ > Steercom mailing list > Steercom at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/steercom > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein wrote: > Tks Anja... I'll look forward to hearing back concerning the set of > questions that I posed either from you or directly from responsible others > in 1Net. > > > > It would be good to put this matter to rest sooner rather than later. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:31 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC; <, > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process > for 1Net > > > > Hi Michael and all, > > Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more about > how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were shared > with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my > knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation > until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how > to improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have > been requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a > user to interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for > that particular user the experience would actually not be very different > than it is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the > weeks to come. > > Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more. > > Best, > Anja > > > > On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein wrote: > > A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be > more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning > of 1Net (certainly by myself). > > > > My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) > in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward > 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful > response. > > > > M > > > > *From:* David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] > *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process > for 1Net > > > > > > On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein wrote: > > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation > that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil > meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the > crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to > inclusions and exclusions. > > > > I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and > accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a > positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger > amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this > point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do > with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy > outcomes of that, and future, events. > > Regards > > > > David > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Feb 14 01:26:10 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:56:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com> <0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Following up on my earlier email, I also wanted to share with you Adiel's response to my additional queries regarding who wrote the summary. Please find our exchange below this message. Best, Anja On 13 February 2014 15:01, Adiel Akplogan wrote: On 2014-02-13, at 24:27 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > The second summary was a collaboration of a number of us, most of whom had helped with previous /1net efforts. > > [AK]: As this was one of the questions specifically asked, could you please clarify who the "number of us" were? In particular, was this a subgroup from the SC or were there others also involved? Hello Anja, there was staff from our various organisations including myself, they don't want to be listed so label all on just me if the "Who" here matter that much. I'm taking the full responsibility of it. Thanks and hope that will help. - a. On 13 February 2014 02:15, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As I had promised, I asked Adiel to shed further light on the financing of > the website/forum and the summary. Please find my email, and Adiel's > detailed reply below. I have asked him to further clarify who the "some of > us" are who wrote the second summary he refers to, but in the interest of > time thought I'll share the below response with you already. I hope this > answers many of the questions that were raised. > > Best wishes, > Anja > > On 12 February 2014 02:21, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > >> Hello Anja, >> >> On 2014-02-11, at 01:59 AM, Anja Kovacs >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks for all the ongoing work on the website and the transformation >> of the summaries on the forum. These are important and positive steps in >> responding to some of the questions and criticisms that have been raised. >> > >> > Within civil society, some people have been wondering, though, how the >> work for both is being funded, and also who exactly is doing it. I think >> these are fair enough questions, and that it would be important to provide >> an answer to them as part of our efforts to improve transparency. >> > >> > Adiel, could you therefore clarify who exactly prepared the summary (I >> had presumed it was you but my apologies if I was wrong!), and how this was >> supported financially, if at all? Similarly for the website, who designed >> and developed it, and where did the idea for a forum come from? And how >> was/is the website funded? >> > >> > I think it is valuable for the members of the SC as well to have a bit >> more of a sense of these issues. My apologies if you already clarified this >> in the first part of the call last week, but if not, it would be great if >> you could do so here. >> >> >> Thanks for your email which has some fair and reasonable questions. >> >> To start, I would like to reinsure you and all form the Civil Society >> that this is and has always been a collective effort to move /1net from >> just a mailing list into something more coherent and structured. >> >> The goal of course is to have the participants organise themselves and >> make /1net what it should be by identifying issues and work together to >> collectively find solutions and/or ideas. But as with anything in life, and >> particularly in self organised environment there is always work to be done >> behind the scenes to ensure that the momentum is kept, and it is perfectly >> reasonable for people to request who is doing that. But at the same time >> people should remember where the whole initiative started from (and it >> seems to me like people suddenly decide to forget it). >> >> The short answer is that there have been two main contributions: that of >> time and of finances. Time has of course come from a wide range of >> participants but in terms of organisational effort much of it has come from >> individuals within some of the I* organisations that signed the Montevideo >> Declaration (particularly AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, RIPE-NCC and ICANN). >> >> The unseen work of /1net to date such as organising meetings, setting up >> mailing lists, registering domains, setting up the website have been done >> by a range of different staff in those organisations. For example, AFRINIC >> as NRO secretariat ran the first mailing list, and we use AFRINIC's web >> conferencing facilities to have calls and coordinate that, RIPE-NCC staff >> work with the hosting company on the transfer of the mailing list from >> nor.net to 1net.org, AFRINIC staff has developed the mailing list >> statistic tools and currently helping with some of the logistic of the >> steering committee all of that voluntarily as part of their job in our >> different organisations. If you look at the Whois for 1net.org you will >> see that AFRINIC took over the domain after the first launch of the web >> site (I am the individual officially named as the registrant) and ICANN is >> the tech administrator. I have been using my time to coordinate the web >> site evolution with a team made of staff of a web hosting company and >> ICANN's communication staff, but they don't do anything that has not been >> approved by myself. They have also implemented the new forum which, some >> within the volunteers I* organisations and others in the broader Internet >> community offered to help road-test before it was officially launched. I >> have been having a weekly coordination meeting with them after the first >> launch (where there was some technical IPv6 and DNSSEC and other issues >> which I and others worked on with them to fix). The cost of hosting the web >> site and its development is currently provided by ICANN. >> >> Gradually coordinating the work behind the scene on these aspects is >> being transitioned to the Steering Committee whose representatives have >> been chosen by different stakeholder groups themselves. For example, the >> Steering Committee also was provided with a link to test out the forum and >> the new web site a few days before it went live so they could provide >> feedback. That will be the systematic approach going forward. >> >> In terms of the summaries produced, there have been two. Staff at APNIC >> produced the first, giving a statistical analysis of discussions on the >> mailing list. That was well received and at the same time many participants >> made it clear they were having troubling following events so consensus was >> quickly reached that a summary of content would be useful. The Steering >> Committee agreed so we moved ahead. The second summary was a collaboration >> of a number of us, most of whom had helped with previous /1net efforts. But >> I had the final sign-off (and I shared a version with the SC). As I >> mentioned on the mailing list this is an attempt to help, and nothing in >> the summary is to be considered conclusive so can be challenged by anyone >> if the find it inaccurate. I have also heard the suggestion on the list to >> have a collaborative editing platform to produce the summary. My idea is >> still to have a draft that people will play around with. I'm not sure just >> letting the group as I see it developing every summary from scratch will >> work effectively (my personal view). >> >> Going forward, we will continue to have have the automated mailing list >> reports and possibly weekly summaries, depending on whether the lists >> themselves show the ability to self-summarise. >> >> As proposed last week and discussed during the last conference call, I >> think the Steering Committee need to organise itself to take over these >> tasks starting with the Communications and Community engagement group. The >> idea seems to have the support of the Steering Committee last week. So that >> is a positive and important step. The team is expected to be comprised of a >> number of professional communicators and Steering Committee members. The >> members aren't decided yet but we'll announce them once they are. >> >> My expectation is that the communications team will make recommendations >> to the Steering Committee about the things you reference: summaries, >> website and so on. And it will be up to the Steering Committee to decide >> how to proceed. >> >> While here, there are two other things I would like to bring your >> attention. Firstly, all efforts behind the scenes are focused on how to >> assist participants in arriving at solutions to issues that are identified >> by participants themselves. It is a true support role in that respect. >> Nothing else. As you may have noticed I ahve refrain myself posting >> directly on some of the issues being discussed not to be seen as directing >> the debate or having any particular hidden agenda. I have heard enough! >> >> Secondly, while some of us from the I* organisations have shouldered much >> of the cost in terms of both time and money of /1net so far, the intention >> going forward is for many other organisations to contribute to get this >> running. The initiative can not sustain itself without all these >> contributions. >> >> At the moment we are focussed on preparations for the Brazil meeting but >> soon after that, we hope that /1net will have provided sufficient value and >> worth that others are keen to support this initiative going forward. >> >> I hope that answers all your questions. If you or others have ideas, >> suggestions, offers of help and so on I would be happy to hear them. >> >> Thanks. >> >> - a. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Steercom mailing list >> Steercom at 1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/steercom >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > > > > > On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Tks Anja... I'll look forward to hearing back concerning the set of >> questions that I posed either from you or directly from responsible others >> in 1Net. >> >> >> >> It would be good to put this matter to rest sooner rather than later. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:31 AM >> *To:* michael gurstein >> *Cc:* David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC; <, >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process >> for 1Net >> >> >> >> Hi Michael and all, >> >> Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more >> about how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were >> shared with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my >> knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation >> until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how >> to improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have >> been requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a >> user to interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for >> that particular user the experience would actually not be very different >> than it is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the >> weeks to come. >> >> Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> >> >> On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be >> more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning >> of 1Net (certainly by myself). >> >> >> >> My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) >> in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward >> 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful >> response. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] >> *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM >> *To:* michael gurstein >> *Cc:* Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process >> for 1Net >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation >> that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil >> meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the >> crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to >> inclusions and exclusions. >> >> >> >> I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency >> and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a >> positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger >> amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this >> point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do >> with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy >> outcomes of that, and future, events. >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Feb 14 03:07:03 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:37:03 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG In-Reply-To: <0b7b01cf272a$123ef7e0$36bce7a0$@gmail.com> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com> <0b7b01cf272a$123ef7e0$36bce7a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael, My apologies for the gaps in my replies, it's been a challenge keeping up with email this month, but I did still want to respond. Please see inline. On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Anja, > > > > Inline... > > > > *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:03 AM > > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; <, > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > > > > Dear Michael, > > 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. > > *[MG>] I'd be very interested to see this... However, I think it is > important to distinguish between decentralization of processes and > decentralization of power... the first without the second is simply making > busywork... my feeling is that much of discussion that you are pointing to > is concerned with this ...* > > *Decentralizing/deconcentrating centralized power comes not through > decentralizing processes but through challenging and contesting for power - > a situation where "decentralization" of one's forces would seem to be a > recipe for failure... * > [AK]: Yes, that is a good point. But at the same time, I would presume that you would also not want that centralised force to be a concentrated one (as in, limited to a very few players who then ultimately become extremely powerful, be these players from civil society or another stakeholder group). Any suggestions then how to strengthen the force, but not the concentration? > 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. > > *[MG>] Potentially interesting but again I'd like to see the details* > > [AK]: Work in progress... > 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. > > *[MG>] Potentially true particularly if there was something more than > busywork processes involved in these multiple venues, but again need > details... (there were none in the short paper that you pointed to, which was > part of the reason for my reacting as I did... * > > *As an example, the challenge in the WIPO discussions I believe, was to > create a real venue for LDC participation and get away from the multiple > empty technical and narrowly focused discussions that (were deliberately > designed?) to sap the LDC energies and resources... it was only when the > LDC's insisted on a specific framework to address their issues that any > real progress (from their perspective) was achieved..* > > [AK]: But isn't this then something that can be done in multiple Internet governance venues as well? As I have said before, I really think we have to move away from thinking of the Internet as an issue, to thinking of it as a space. That is an argument in favour of recognising different venues as being the appropriate places to discuss and decide on different Internet governance issues. But arguing in favour of such decentralisation doesn't stop us from also arguing in favour of an overarching framework that guides both the development of this architecture in itself and the processes that take place in the various different segments of it. In fact, increasingly I am wondering whether, if we want multistakeholderism to work, we maybe need something like a Constitution for multistakeholder processes - not just a set of principles, but a more detailed, binding document that outlines, for example, what kind of criteria a particular participant (or at least non-government participant) needs to fulfil in order to participate in a particular kind of process (and criteria might be a little more open-ended and flexible for some processes, more stringent for others, possibly guided by the nature of the outcomes of the process in question). If there isn't a document that binds us on these things, I can't really see at the moment how we can avoid capture. > Amorphous processes and venues, in which all issues are clubbed together, > are a minus, not a plus for the developing world. > > *[MG>] Not necessarily, if the issue is a real contest about real issues...* > > [AK]: Could you give an example maybe? > 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. > > *[MG>] yes, but solidarity around what exactly...solidarity in support of > exclusionary and non-transparent or accountable processes? solidarity in > support of CS appointees who act as tacit or even active supporters of > these processes? solidarity around CS prioritizing Human Rights but denying > equivalent support for Equity and Social Justice ... That hardly seems like a > useful strategy for marginalized groups or anyone else in CS with a real > concern for how these things are developing, for that matter.* > > [AK]: I share your concern for social justice, Michael, but I seem to see that concern present in some form or the other and admittedly to varying degrees in far more posts that are made on these lists or far more interactions I have with people then you do. And to build alliances and support around these ideas, I think it is important to acknowledge those seeds, no matter how limited they are. Wouldn't you agree that that is how movement building always proceeds? Best, Anja > *Best,* > > *M* > > Best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > On 8 February 2014 11:01, michael gurstein wrote: > > Anja, > > > > 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). > > > > M > > > > *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > *Sent:* Friday, February 07, 2014 5:10 PM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; <, > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > > > > Hi Michael, > > Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent > earlier, I felt compelled to respond directly. > > 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) "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" 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. > > 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). > > 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. > > All the best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein wrote: > > 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... > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 *whatever it > takes* 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. > > > > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common > sense. > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? > > > > M > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs > *Sent:* Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > *To:* Anne Jellema > *Cc:* Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > Dear all, > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments > below: > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: > > /SNIP/ > > 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?! > > > > 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: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Best, > Anja > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Marilia Maciel* > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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... > > > > - 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: > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > 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? > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > 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). > > 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? > > 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 > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we > can continue the discussions. > > Thanks again for the good start > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > > > *From: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" > *Reply-To: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" > *Date: *Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM > *To: *"jeremy at ciroap.org" , " > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > 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. ... > > > > The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku > best bits meeting > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Three examples might be: > > 1. Net neutrality > > 2. Protection for personal privacy > > 3. Affordable access > > 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. > > > > I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for > this in a two day conference > > > 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. > > 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. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > Click hereto report this email as spam. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > > Anne Jellema > > Chief Executive Officer > > Cape Town, RSA > mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 > > tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 > > tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 > > Skype anne.jellema > > @afjellema > > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | > www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Feb 14 03:08:31 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:38:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <0b8001cf272a$180675e0$481361a0$@gmail.com> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <20140209200812.40d02420@quill> <0b8001cf272a$180675e0$481361a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agreed, Michael. Anja On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein wrote: > While somewhat agreeing with what you say below I would add the need to > protect against the capture of CS and other elements in those processes > through ensuring full transparency and effective structures of > accountability. > > > > M > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:20 AM > *To:* Norbert Bollow > *Cc:* IGC; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms > (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) > > > > I agree with much of what Ian and Avri had to say. The reason I am still > putting my bet on exploring multistakeholderism in greater detail is > because, as I have mentioned before, the defining differences here are that > civil society in that system would also be guaranteed a place around the > table if it so desired (i.e. corporations wouldn't be the only ones), and > that governments would have to account for what they do with the inputs > provided, rather than those inputs just disappearing into what sometimes > seems like a black box. If we can make those things stick, I think that is > a major gain for people's democracy, not a loss. > > Corporate power is not the only obstacle in the way of such a vision > succeeding though. It also requires a new kind of organising among civil > society, including by working through and addressing the very real power > imbalances within civil society. That is our responsibility. Whether or not > we'll be able to step up to the challenge is a wait and see, but I for one > would like us to try. > > Anja > > > > On 10 February 2014 00:38, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this > > I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly > better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have > considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't > necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get > posted on the IGC and BestBits lists. > > Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov > > Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to > address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms > > against capture and other forms of undue influence by special > > interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related > discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough > crossposting problem) already. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for > > the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly > > take these realities of particular interests (which are often in > > conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. > > > > > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 whatever it takes 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple > > > common sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been > > > telling us? > > > > > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja > > > Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > > > To: Anne Jellema > > > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); > > > genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; > > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive > > > proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few > > > comments below: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema > > > wrote: > > > > > > /SNIP/ > > > > > > 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?! > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised > > > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Best, > > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Marilia Maciel > > > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit > > > - IG governance > > > To: Andrew Puddephatt > > > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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: > > > > > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back > > > to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and > > > hoping we can continue the discussions. > > > > > > Thanks again for the good start > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin > > > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Fri Feb 14 09:16:43 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:16:43 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5A057CC7-03BE-4F57-87FC-C45ABE799F50@difference.com.au> Conversely, you should be careful not to conflate disagreeing with particular strategies for increasing accountability and transparency (your own or others) with not being taking accountability and transparency seriously. Regards David On 8 Feb 2014, at 2:40 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow being "opposition" to those processes. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) > > > > On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote: > >> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to >> multistakeholderism) > > > Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my greater concerns. > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From dave at difference.com.au Fri Feb 14 09:31:28 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:31:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> Message-ID: On 9 Feb 2014, at 3:26 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real and present danger. Multi-stakeholderism that is not genuinely open to all, and that is not transparent, is a real danger. But in contrast, multilateral intergovernmental institutions are not open to all by definition and design. When combined with a lack of transparency, this can be disastrous. > But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we call democracy? In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties. The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse in some other countries. For an example, the Australian Law Reform Commission released its final report into copyright reform, recommending many changes including a switch from a common law fair dealing system to a US style fair use system, which would add substantial flexibility. The report had contributions from hundreds of stakeholders, involvement of industry representatives and other experts, very senior judges and legal experts, etc. The minister announced he was not convinced - taken by many to be the first step in rejecting it. Is it a coincidence the Ministers party has received large campaign contributions from large copyright holders such as the movie industry? > > And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable arrangements between these corruptible nation states either. > > The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating as regards nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business interests from crowding the public out of the tent ". > > I couldn't agree more. > > For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any form of governance, highly corruptible . Openness and transparency are essential aspects of multi-stakeholderism. Not all MS institutions are equal in this respect, and we should ensure that truly open participation and full transparency are among the principles for future MS institutions. > The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)". > > It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a central design element. Indeed. Much of ICANNs institutional design makes much more sense if you understand this historical background. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Feb 14 22:06:24 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:36:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com> <0b8a01cf272a$23306e80$69914b80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02f401cf29fa$ebc5b800$c3512800$@gmail.com> Thanks for this. Some questions were usefully answered and others less so. but we get the idea. Best and thanks again, Mike From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 11:56 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Dear all, Following up on my earlier email, I also wanted to share with you Adiel's response to my additional queries regarding who wrote the summary. Please find our exchange below this message. Best, Anja On 13 February 2014 15:01, Adiel Akplogan wrote: On 2014-02-13, at 24:27 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > The second summary was a collaboration of a number of us, most of whom had helped with previous /1net efforts. > > [AK]: As this was one of the questions specifically asked, could you please clarify who the "number of us" were? In particular, was this a subgroup from the SC or were there others also involved? Hello Anja, there was staff from our various organisations including myself, they don't want to be listed so label all on just me if the "Who" here matter that much. I'm taking the full responsibility of it. Thanks and hope that will help. - a. On 13 February 2014 02:15, Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, As I had promised, I asked Adiel to shed further light on the financing of the website/forum and the summary. Please find my email, and Adiel's detailed reply below. I have asked him to further clarify who the "some of us" are who wrote the second summary he refers to, but in the interest of time thought I'll share the below response with you already. I hope this answers many of the questions that were raised. Best wishes, Anja On 12 February 2014 02:21, Adiel Akplogan wrote: Hello Anja, On 2014-02-11, at 01:59 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thanks for all the ongoing work on the website and the transformation of the summaries on the forum. These are important and positive steps in responding to some of the questions and criticisms that have been raised. > > Within civil society, some people have been wondering, though, how the work for both is being funded, and also who exactly is doing it. I think these are fair enough questions, and that it would be important to provide an answer to them as part of our efforts to improve transparency. > > Adiel, could you therefore clarify who exactly prepared the summary (I had presumed it was you but my apologies if I was wrong!), and how this was supported financially, if at all? Similarly for the website, who designed and developed it, and where did the idea for a forum come from? And how was/is the website funded? > > I think it is valuable for the members of the SC as well to have a bit more of a sense of these issues. My apologies if you already clarified this in the first part of the call last week, but if not, it would be great if you could do so here. Thanks for your email which has some fair and reasonable questions. To start, I would like to reinsure you and all form the Civil Society that this is and has always been a collective effort to move /1net from just a mailing list into something more coherent and structured. The goal of course is to have the participants organise themselves and make /1net what it should be by identifying issues and work together to collectively find solutions and/or ideas. But as with anything in life, and particularly in self organised environment there is always work to be done behind the scenes to ensure that the momentum is kept, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to request who is doing that. But at the same time people should remember where the whole initiative started from (and it seems to me like people suddenly decide to forget it). The short answer is that there have been two main contributions: that of time and of finances. Time has of course come from a wide range of participants but in terms of organisational effort much of it has come from individuals within some of the I* organisations that signed the Montevideo Declaration (particularly AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, RIPE-NCC and ICANN). The unseen work of /1net to date such as organising meetings, setting up mailing lists, registering domains, setting up the website have been done by a range of different staff in those organisations. For example, AFRINIC as NRO secretariat ran the first mailing list, and we use AFRINIC's web conferencing facilities to have calls and coordinate that, RIPE-NCC staff work with the hosting company on the transfer of the mailing list from nor.net to 1net.org, AFRINIC staff has developed the mailing list statistic tools and currently helping with some of the logistic of the steering committee all of that voluntarily as part of their job in our different organisations. If you look at the Whois for 1net.org you will see that AFRINIC took over the domain after the first launch of the web site (I am the individual officially named as the registrant) and ICANN is the tech administrator. I have been using my time to coordinate the web site evolution with a team made of staff of a web hosting company and ICANN's communication staff, but they don't do anything that has not been approved by myself. They have also implemented the new forum which, some within the volunteers I* organisations and others in the broader Internet community offered to help road-test before it was officially launched. I have been having a weekly coordination meeting with them after the first launch (where there was some technical IPv6 and DNSSEC and other issues which I and others worked on with them to fix). The cost of hosting the web site and its development is currently provided by ICANN. Gradually coordinating the work behind the scene on these aspects is being transitioned to the Steering Committee whose representatives have been chosen by different stakeholder groups themselves. For example, the Steering Committee also was provided with a link to test out the forum and the new web site a few days before it went live so they could provide feedback. That will be the systematic approach going forward. In terms of the summaries produced, there have been two. Staff at APNIC produced the first, giving a statistical analysis of discussions on the mailing list. That was well received and at the same time many participants made it clear they were having troubling following events so consensus was quickly reached that a summary of content would be useful. The Steering Committee agreed so we moved ahead. The second summary was a collaboration of a number of us, most of whom had helped with previous /1net efforts. But I had the final sign-off (and I shared a version with the SC). As I mentioned on the mailing list this is an attempt to help, and nothing in the summary is to be considered conclusive so can be challenged by anyone if the find it inaccurate. I have also heard the suggestion on the list to have a collaborative editing platform to produce the summary. My idea is still to have a draft that people will play around with. I'm not sure just letting the group as I see it developing every summary from scratch will work effectively (my personal view). Going forward, we will continue to have have the automated mailing list reports and possibly weekly summaries, depending on whether the lists themselves show the ability to self-summarise. As proposed last week and discussed during the last conference call, I think the Steering Committee need to organise itself to take over these tasks starting with the Communications and Community engagement group. The idea seems to have the support of the Steering Committee last week. So that is a positive and important step. The team is expected to be comprised of a number of professional communicators and Steering Committee members. The members aren't decided yet but we'll announce them once they are. My expectation is that the communications team will make recommendations to the Steering Committee about the things you reference: summaries, website and so on. And it will be up to the Steering Committee to decide how to proceed. While here, there are two other things I would like to bring your attention. Firstly, all efforts behind the scenes are focused on how to assist participants in arriving at solutions to issues that are identified by participants themselves. It is a true support role in that respect. Nothing else. As you may have noticed I ahve refrain myself posting directly on some of the issues being discussed not to be seen as directing the debate or having any particular hidden agenda. I have heard enough! Secondly, while some of us from the I* organisations have shouldered much of the cost in terms of both time and money of /1net so far, the intention going forward is for many other organisations to contribute to get this running. The initiative can not sustain itself without all these contributions. At the moment we are focussed on preparations for the Brazil meeting but soon after that, we hope that /1net will have provided sufficient value and worth that others are keen to support this initiative going forward. I hope that answers all your questions. If you or others have ideas, suggestions, offers of help and so on I would be happy to hear them. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ Steercom mailing list Steercom at 1net.org http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/steercom -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein wrote: Tks Anja. I'll look forward to hearing back concerning the set of questions that I posed either from you or directly from responsible others in 1Net. It would be good to put this matter to rest sooner rather than later. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:31 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: David Cake; Ian Peter; Gene Kimmelman; IGC; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Hi Michael and all, Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more about how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were shared with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how to improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have been requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a user to interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for that particular user the experience would actually not be very different than it is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the weeks to come. Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more. Best, Anja On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein wrote: A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning of 1Net (certainly by myself). My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful response. M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein wrote: Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy outcomes of that, and future, events. Regards David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 08:11:08 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:11:08 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] The Day We Fight Back - February 11th [Submit a cartoon and win $$] Message-ID: Hi there 1. You have been following on the Snowden and post Snowden issues? 2. You have been working on Internet and web-related issues 3. You have an interest in privacy, net neutrality? Join the Day We Fight Back events across the world on February 11th. And if you can pull up a nice cartoon, you may win 1000, 500 or 250$ Click on http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/02/03/submit-cartoons-on-nsa-surveillance-and-win-1000/ Check on #webwewant and see what others are sending. Good luck!! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Feb 16 17:33:38 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:33:38 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <906lv16n23uep0hdvdoy2bbc.1391516194605@email.android.com> Message-ID: Dear Anja, Unfortunately it took me longer than expected to come back to this thread, but I did come back. Thanks so much for your comments, which are helping me better understand the mechanism you suggested. I particularly liked the way you depart from the WSIS Action Lines. I still have some doubts though, and I would be grateful if you can make a few more comments about the model. I am currently writing an article and seeking more understanding about the different proposals. - How to ensure that participants of the networks are representative of the diversity of views in their own stakeholder group? - what do you think could be the outputs of the discussions in the networks? Non-binding recommendations? Would you say they would be mainly guides for national action, progressively leading to global harmonization of approaches? - Taking into account the influence of US based companies in the business sector (1net SC being an example) do you envision that something meaningful about the protection of privacy, for instance, could be achieved by consensus, if we consider that data is the base of the business of many US internet companies? Or would we see the same kind of stallment we witness in intergovernmental negotiations? As far as I understood, no stakeholder group or region alone could make decions, but could they block decisions? - What is the source of legitimacy that justifies, in your view, the equal-footing participation of, for example, Google, Privacy International, an academic from a university and the government of Sweden on the same network to formulate recommendations on privacy? Do you think source of legitimacy should be a concern at all? I did not understand your comments about governments as main decision makers in the following paragraph: " They are arranged in such a way that *none of the stakeholders or regions can determine the outcome without the cooperation of all other stakeholder groups and regions*. Note that this will still leave space, for example, for governments to be the main decision makers once a mechanism that all stakeholder groups and regions have agreed on to address a particular issue has been put into place" . Thank you very much, Anja. Best wishes Marilia On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments > below: > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: > > /SNIP/ > > 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?! >> > > 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: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Best, > Anja > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Marilia Maciel > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > 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. > > 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. > > - 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. > > - 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... > > - 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: > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > 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? > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > 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). > 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? > 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 > > - 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. > > - 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. > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we > can continue the discussions. > Thanks again for the good start > Marília > > > > > > > >> >> Cheers >> Anne >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < >> mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> --Mike >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >>> >>> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >>> >>> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >>> >>> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA >>> >>> >>> >>> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >>> >>> www.internews.org | @internews | >>> facebook.com/internews >>> >>> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >>> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >>> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM >>> To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" , " >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >>> >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG >>> governance >>> >>> 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. ... >>> >>> The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the >>> Baku best bits meeting >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG >>> governance >>> >>> >>> On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >>> >>> Three examples might be: >>> >>> 1. Net neutrality >>> >>> 2. Protection for personal privacy >>> >>> 3. Affordable access >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement >>> for this in a two day conference >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the >>> global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >>> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> >>> Click hereto report this email as spam. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> Chief Executive Officer >> Cape Town, RSA >> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 >> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 >> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 >> Skype anne.jellema >> @afjellema >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | >> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Mon Feb 17 01:39:21 2014 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:39:21 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Final Report of CSTD WG on EC CG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5301AE99.3000008@apc.org> Hi all - apologies for any cross postings. This a short note to let you know the next WGEC meeting starts next week in Geneva and runs Feb 24-28 (5 days, inclusive). For background information about the working group see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx Information about the next meeting is available: unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=425 This is the last meeting of the working group which must reach agreement on recommendations "on how to fully implement [the WSIS] mandate". The working group report will be an input to the overall review of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2014. Since the last meeting (last November) a subgroup has been working, under terms of reference from the WGEC, on further research and analysis. While the report of that sub-group is not yet available on the CSTD website (it will be shortly) I am forwarding it for you (see the message below). Remote participation to the meeting will be available through WebEx. I am trying to get more information about this but details are not yet available on the CSTD website. In the meantime, those wanting to register for this must email wgec at unctad.org Kind regards Joy Liddicoat www.apc.org -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Final Report of CSTD WG on EC CG Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:43:44 +0000 From: Private Sector Phil Rushton Reply-To: UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation To: WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG Peter Attached is the compiled responses for consideration by the CSTD WG on EC. My apologies for not submitting earlier. This report has been jointly developed by the Co-convenors (Phil Rushton and Joy Liddicoat). As well as forwarding to you the compiled responses this email reports back on 1. the process used within the Correspondence Group, 2. issues arising from the process and 3. observations from the submissions. In accordance with its Terms of Reference we can report: * 19 people volunteered to join the correspondence group mailing list. All members of the WGEC were also on the mailing list. * The correspondence group provided three update reports to the WGEC Chair 30^th November 2013, 11^th December and 10^th February 2014. *Process Used* The Correspondence Group: (a) used a synthesis of 24 broad areas relating to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet that was agreed by the WGEC members and was derived from the 200 issues that were identified in the spreadsheet developed in the second meeting of the WGEC. This was circulated on January 8th 2014, seeking input by 31^st January 2014. (b) had no stipulation made on the structure submissions other than that they should be against the 24 broad issues agreed by the WGEC. A spreadsheet developed by one respondent, utilising the submission made to the WGEC, was well received and subsequently used by many others in their submissions. (c) The spread sheet was taken as the basis for developing the compilation of responses across the following areas: (i) where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list; (ii) identifying the status of mechanisms, if any, and whether they are addressing the issues; and (iii) identifying the gaps in order to ascertain what type of recommendations may be required to be drafted by the WGEC. (d) The above deadline of January 31^st for submissions was extended to 7 February at the request of various correspondence group members and by agreement of the WGEC Chair. A compilation document was shared with the Correspondence group on 12 February and a final document for consideration by the WGEC was sent on 14th February 2014. (e) 19 inputs were received: 4 from government; 6 from technical and academic community; 5 from civil society (including one joint input from 3 groups); 3 from private sector, and 1 from an intergovernmental organisation. There was one contribution that was blank. *Issues Arising* * Establishing the correspondence email group encountered some technical issues and took time to be established. * 2 issues were raised within the CG after the agreement of the WGEC to the broad areas * 3 supporters proposed that "Enabling governments, on an equal footing, to participate in the Internet governance process" be a broad area in its own right. This issue exists (issue 106) under Stakeholders and Governance broad issue. * One of 3 supporters raised financial issues including tax as a potential broad issue. The issue exists (issue 33)under Applicable Jurisdiction, cross border co-ordination. * Non receipt of emails (19^th December referral to WGEC members was not apparently received by all) raised issues regarding acceptance of WGEC decision to the 24 broad areas, specifically with regard to the issue 106 above. * There was a conscious decision not to specify a formal input structure, and whilst it allowed for free format of input, it made final compilation difficult. * The time available for responding was limited given earlier issues in establishing the email list. * It would have been easier had interested parties wishing to be part of the CG contacted the secretariat directly. Observations of Inputs * The submissions indicate that there are diverse mechanisms carrying out work on many of the public policy issues identified. There appear to be some areas of overlap and concerns about lack of progress in some areas. * There is no clear consensus identifying particular gaps and therefore no consensus on any recommendations that may be required to be drafted by the WGEC. All recommendations are therefore included in the summary document. * The quality of submissions was good, and a particularly substantive submission was received from Kyoto University. We think this submission may merit a separate discussion with the WGEC. * Analysis of inputs suggest that more research may be required in some areas in order for firm conclusions to be drawn The TOR for the CGWGEC provide: "Any issue that cannot reach consensus in the Correspondence Group will be referred to the Working Group, with the options that represent the range of opinions expressed in the Correspondence Group. The final decision on such issues will be made by the WGEC." The compilation of the inputs were circulated, minor amendments were proposed and, where appropriate, included. No substantive disagreement was recorded. We therefore submit all the compiled inputs to the WGEC for consideration in the attached spreadsheet. We would like to express our appreciation for the assistance of Sam Dickson and Lea Kaspar in the collation of the issues for the WGEC and our work. Phil Rushton and Joy Liddicoat Regards *Phil Rushton* *Standards and Numbering Policy Strategy* *BT Technology Service & Operations,* *Office: + 44 (0) 1977 594807 Fax : +44 (0) 1908 862698 Email: *_**__*philip.m.rushton at bt.com*_ This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you. We monitor our email system, and may record your emails. British Telecommunications plc Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no: 1800000 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CGoutput (non- PDF).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 379145 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: joy.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 229 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Feb 17 06:04:53 2014 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 06:04:53 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] IGF 2014 Consultation - ISOC Submission In-Reply-To: <341CBE89-38E7-4927-BCC8-597AADBB277B@ciroap.org> References: <52F9F494.9030206@ciroap.org> <52FA127A.7020609@itforchange.net> <341CBE89-38E7-4927-BCC8-597AADBB277B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5301ECD5.6010707@cis-india.org> Jeremy Malcolm [2014-02-11 11:05:21 -0500]: > On 11 Feb 2014, at 8:07 pm, parminder wrote: > >> On Tuesday 11 February 2014 03:29 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> This is a BIG step for ISOC. Finally they are suggesting the IGF >>> produce policy outcome documents open for voluntary adoption, based on >>> the IETF process... something they had been fiercely resisting for years! >> >> Public policies are not technical standards to be voluntarily adopted... (even technical standards have often to be mandatory - as you know Microsoft for instance will never - and did not - voluntarily adopt inter operability standards for document software) ... This is an entirely new kind of political-ese to talk of voluntary adoption of public policies, which is post-democratic in essence. These are frameworks for working outside democratic politics. Voluntary adoption of public policies is similar to 'coalition of the willing' for political action and I am sure you know what it means and implies.. Th powerful shall inherit the world.... >> >> Everyone can see what slope we are slipping on.. > > Baby steps, this is still a paradigm shift for ISOC. What begins with voluntarily-adopted soft law can harden into national and international law where necessary... at least now, finally, we are on a path that could lead somewhere. I'm not going to criticise them for taking this step. International treaties are always voluntary, and generally aren't enforceable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are internationally-recognized norms, after all. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org ------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 884 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Feb 18 08:15:26 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:15:26 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS Timeline References: Message-ID: > On the morning of the 17th, ITU leadership announced the following plan for the 2014 ITU WSIS review: > > - 4th preparatory meeting, April 14-18, 2014 in Geneva > > - final preparatory meeting, May 28-31, 2014 in Sharm, Egypt > > - ITU's High Level Meeting in Geneva, June 10-13, 2014 > > Best regards, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 19 04:36:00 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:36:00 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Informal MAG meeting this morning Message-ID: Just to be open, some 20+ MAG members gathered at the cafe in Palais de Nation around 9:20 to get informal introduction each other, discussed about how to strengthen IGF, among others, in view of the second term ending last year. I hope some reporting be sent, as well. Now, IGF Open Consultation is stating, big applause to the outgoing Interim Chair, Markus, and welcoming Janis. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 19 22:21:43 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:21:43 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Survey on Civil Society Steering Group options Message-ID: <7CCC2631-D33F-4D0D-937C-9F2F465D188B@Malcolm.id.au> Below is a link to a survey set up so that you can input your thoughts on the future of the Civil Society Steering Group – which was set up in haste to deal with some nomination issues where it was important that civil society present joint nominations. The Best Bits community already has a liaison on the group (through me), but the aim is now to expand this group and your input is welcome into how this should be done. Survey closes end of February. http://igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=75933&lang=en -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Feb 20 06:47:22 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:47:22 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting Message-ID: Dear all, The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know. Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This should be discussed and we will keep you informed. Thanks Marilia Agenda: Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th) Expression of Interest a. Report about current status b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar 15th Content contribution process a. Document drafting b. Workflow with other committees Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations a. List of organizations b. Amount of seats for special invitees Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser) a. Updates b. Remote participation - *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Feb 20 09:44:25 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:44:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Marilia, Could you share with us the pre-schedule dates for the next meetings of EC? It could be extremely usefull as it would help us to compile on going demands in time. Best Joana On 20 Feb 2014 09:16, "Valeria Betancourt" wrote: > Dear Marilia, > > Extension of deadline for content submissions would be extremely useful > > Valeria > > El 20/02/2014, a las 6:47, Marilia Maciel > escribió: > > Dear all, > > The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net > Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any > suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know. > > Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request > an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This > should be discussed and we will keep you informed. > > Thanks > Marilia > > Agenda: > > Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th) > > Expression of Interest > a. Report about current status > b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar > 15th > > Content contribution process > a. Document drafting > b. Workflow with other committees > > Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations > a. List of organizations > b. Amount of seats for special invitees > > Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser) > a. Updates > b. Remote participation > > > > - > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Feb 20 10:31:51 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:31:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting Message-ID: Hello all, The call has just ended. The official summary will be made public by the Secretariat and we will forward it to the list. Below are some unofficial remarks based on my own understanding. Adam and Carlos can add. Some of the most important points discussed today encompassed: - Deadline for substantive contributions will be postponed for *March 8*. We can't stress enough, however, how important it is to receive contributions *as soon as possible, please*. This will tremendously help the secretariat with the summary and will help the subsequent work of the EMC; - Size of contributions: the number of characters will increase, especially on the contribution about frameworks. Please refer to the website soon for this update; - Visa will be free for participants of the meeting, but they need to present an invitation letter for that purpose; - Overall, registration for the Conference is still slow (353 people), although Business and CS is going in a good pace. I think this is expected, as stakeholders have different timings to engage. I would suggest that some of us here that are mainly Academics register under the Academic sector; - During the next days discussions of selection criteria will start. Again, selection will only take place if needed. If you have suggestions of criteria, please share; - The organization of hubs around the world will be encouraged. Training and online assistance will be offered to hub organizers; - The first meeting of the HLC will take place on Monday 24. We will receive updates about that later; - The next meeting of the EMC is scheduled to March 7, but the date is still TBC. These were the main points. A complete and official summary will be prepared by the Secretariat. Please, always consult the website for official information. Best wishes! Marília On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Marilia, > Could you share with us the pre-schedule dates for the next meetings of > EC? It could be extremely usefull as it would help us to compile on going > demands in time. > Best > Joana > On 20 Feb 2014 09:16, "Valeria Betancourt" wrote: > >> Dear Marilia, >> >> Extension of deadline for content submissions would be extremely useful >> >> Valeria >> >> El 20/02/2014, a las 6:47, Marilia Maciel >> escribió: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net >> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any >> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know. >> >> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request >> an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This >> should be discussed and we will keep you informed. >> >> Thanks >> Marilia >> >> Agenda: >> >> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th) >> >> Expression of Interest >> a. Report about current status >> b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar >> 15th >> >> Content contribution process >> a. Document drafting >> b. Workflow with other committees >> >> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations >> a. List of organizations >> b. Amount of seats for special invitees >> >> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser) >> a. Updates >> b. Remote participation >> >> >> >> - >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ------------- >> Valeria Betancourt >> Directora / Manager >> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and >> Information Policy Programme >> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for >> Progressive Communications, APC >> http://www.apc.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 20 11:40:15 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:40:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <230C6685-2FA0-4BB1-8531-4030FECD0BFF@glocom.ac.jp> Thanks Marilia. Just to add that more information will come about the visa process. But it's clear special arrangements will be made. You will need an invitation letter and that will be sent after completing and expression of interest Adam On Feb 21, 2014, at 12:31 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hello all, > > The call has just ended. The official summary will be made public by the Secretariat and we will forward it to the list. Below are some unofficial remarks based on my own understanding. Adam and Carlos can add. Some of the most important points discussed today encompassed: > > - Deadline for substantive contributions will be postponed for March 8. We can't stress enough, however, how important it is to receive contributions as soon as possible, please. This will tremendously help the secretariat with the summary and will help the subsequent work of the EMC; > - Size of contributions: the number of characters will increase, especially on the contribution about frameworks. Please refer to the website soon for this update; > - Visa will be free for participants of the meeting, but they need to present an invitation letter for that purpose; > - Overall, registration for the Conference is still slow (353 people), although Business and CS is going in a good pace. I think this is expected, as stakeholders have different timings to engage. I would suggest that some of us here that are mainly Academics register under the Academic sector; > - During the next days discussions of selection criteria will start. Again, selection will only take place if needed. If you have suggestions of criteria, please share; > - The organization of hubs around the world will be encouraged. Training and online assistance will be offered to hub organizers; > - The first meeting of the HLC will take place on Monday 24. We will receive updates about that later; > - The next meeting of the EMC is scheduled to March 7, but the date is still TBC. > > These were the main points. A complete and official summary will be prepared by the Secretariat. Please, always consult the website for official information. > > Best wishes! > Marília > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Marilia, > Could you share with us the pre-schedule dates for the next meetings of EC? It could be extremely usefull as it would help us to compile on going demands in time. > Best > Joana > > On 20 Feb 2014 09:16, "Valeria Betancourt" wrote: > Dear Marilia, > > Extension of deadline for content submissions would be extremely useful > > Valeria > > El 20/02/2014, a las 6:47, Marilia Maciel escribió: > >> Dear all, >> >> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know. >> >> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This should be discussed and we will keep you informed. >> >> Thanks >> Marilia >> >> Agenda: >> >> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th) >> >> Expression of Interest >> a. Report about current status >> b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar 15th >> >> Content contribution process >> a. Document drafting >> b. Workflow with other committees >> >> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations >> a. List of organizations >> b. Amount of seats for special invitees >> >> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser) >> a. Updates >> b. Remote participation >> >> >> >> - >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Feb 3 09:05:22 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:05:22 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Agree. It would be important to incorporate this in our contributions. March 1st is the deadline. On Monday, February 3, 2014, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 3 Feb 2014, at 3:51 am, Ian Peter > > wrote: > > Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask to > aid industry dominance with no governmental involvement whatsoever. And > here the dominant industry players often find willing supporters in the > technical community. I think civil society needs to be clear that, if it > supports multistakeholderism, it is not giving support to no governmental > involvement at all or to unregulated industry dominance. I think this is a > real debate we have to have. > > And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all stakeholders > have equal power in this - civil society arguments do not carry the weight > of the large internet corporations, and to pretend that ms-ism somehow > changes this imbalance is either naive or deliberately misleading. > > I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way the agenda > is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles for governance, and > this word multistakeholderism is going to be front and centre. I think we > need to unwrap it a little and state clearly that the real issues going on > are between governmental and industry control, neither of which of itself > is of itself a satisfactory model. > > > Brilliantly put Ian. Agree that this will be a key differentiator between > what civil society puts forward for the meeting and what (if anything) 1net > may put forward. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Thu Feb 20 17:54:17 2014 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:54:17 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: Remote Participation Third Meeting WGEC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53068799.10202@apc.org> Sorry for any cross posting on this, but for those wanting to participate remotely in the meeting next week, please see the message below Kind regards Joy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Remote Participation Third Meeting WGEC Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:59:38 +0100 From: WGEC To: joy at apc.org Dear Joy, Those interested to participate remotely in the meeting should send a email to wgec at unctad.org. Remote participation will be facilitated through WebEx. We will make a list of remote participants and we will send them the WebEx link to access the meeting next week. Best wishes CSTD Secretariat ----- Forwarded by Claudia Contreras/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO on 12.02.2014 11:58 ----- From: joy To: Claudia Contreras Cc: Padmashree Gehl Sampath , Mervi Kultamaa Date: 12.02.2014 02:46 Subject: Re: Remote Participation Third Meeting WGEC ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Claudia - thanks for your reply. However, I will be attending in person :) What I would like is information on remote participation for those of my colleagues who cannot do so thanks for your help Joy On 11/02/2014 9:57 p.m., Claudia Contreras wrote: Dear Joy, We receive you registration form. We will include you in the list of people that will participate remotely. We will send you the link to the WebEx meeting next week. Best wishes Claudia Claudia Contreras Science, Technology and ICTs Branch Division on Technology and Logistics United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Palais des Nations, E 7058 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland Tel: 41-22-917-3313 E-mail: _claudia.contreras at unctad.org_ Website: _http://www.unctad.org/stdev_<_http://www.unctad.org/stdev_> From: joy __ To: WGEC __ Cc: Valeria Betancourt __ Date: 11.02.2014 02:15 Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Reminder to confirm participation third meeting WGEC (24-28 February 2014) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Secretariat - please find attached my registration form for you - please let me know if you need any more information. Can you also please share details of how to participate remotely by WebEx thank you Kind regards Joy Liddicoat -------- Original Message -------- *Subject: * Fwd: Reminder to confirm participation third meeting WGEC (24-28 February 2014) *Date: * Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:15:25 +1300 *From: * joy __ *Reply-To: * _joy at apc.org_ *Organisation: * APC *To: * Mongi Hamdi __ , 'Padmashree Gehl Sampath' __ *CC: * Peter. Major __ , Valeria Betancourt __ Dear colleagues, Forwarding confirmation of my attendance to you. Please let me know if you need any more information. Kind regards Joy Liddicoat -------- Original Message -------- *Subject: * Reminder to confirm participation third meeting WGEC (24-28 February 2014) *Date: * Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:54:45 +0100 *From: * WGEC __ *Reply-To: * UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation __ *To: * _WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG_ Dear WGEC Members, This is a kind reminder to confirm your participation in the third meeting of the WGEC. This meeting will be held on 24-28 February 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. In case you are attending the meeting, please find attached the registration form of this event. Please fill it in and send it back to us at your earliest convenience. The meeting will take place in room XXIV at the Palais des Nations (1st Floor, E-Building). Remote participation will be available through WebEx for those unable to attend in person. Please send an email to _wgec at unctad.org_ if you would like to receive information about this mechanism of participation. More information of the meeting is available at _http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=425_ Please do not hesitate to contact us should you need additional information. Best wishes, WGEC Secretariat [attachment "3rd WGEC Registration form 24-28 February 2014_JJL.doc" deleted by Claudia Contreras/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO] [attachment "joy.vcf" deleted by Claudia Contreras/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: joy.vcf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 239 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: joy.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 229 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 05:58:17 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:58:17 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [aisi-ig-l] The 2014 IGF Themes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Below and attached are the propsed IGF Themes for 2014 as adopted by the IGF/MAG meeting in Geneva yesterday: 1. Local policies enabling Internet Access 2. Content Creation, Dissemination and Use 3. Internet as an engine for growth and development 4. IGF and the Future of Internet ecosystem 5. Enhancing Digital Trust 6. Internet and Human Rights 7. Critical Internet Resources 8. Emerging Issues -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Fri Feb 21 09:33:06 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:33:06 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Stream 2 output on proposed principles submission for Brazil In-Reply-To: <52FE1107.5000102@cdt.org> References: <52FE1107.5000102@cdt.org> Message-ID: <530763A2.9040805@cdt.org> Dear all, Please see below the link to text on human rights focused governance principles we have developed on the BestBits Stream 2 and Summit lists for the Brazil NETmundial meeting. Just as a reminder the proposed submission has two purposes: to insist that human rights principles 1) frame Internet governance discussions, deliberations and decision-making generally, and 2) underpin Internet governance processes and participation mechanisms (thus reinforcing similar points in the submission being drafted by the institutional evolution Stream). It does so by highlighting two civil society contributions that are specifically focused on human rights and the Internet - the IRPC's Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet and APC's Internet Rights Charter. The text is here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles Comments and suggestions welcome! But by Feb 27 please, so we can finalize the text for sign-on and submission. Many thanks. Matthew From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 21 05:17:29 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:47:29 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: References: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:39 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > Yes, it would be very important. We will convey this point. We only > have a trade-off we need to try to minimize: the more time we give to > inputs, the less time EMC will have to work on an initial draft > document. In the 2 days of the meeting, we will only have about 12 > hours of actual work in sessions, so most of the people though it > would be useful to have an initial input document, which, of course, > participants are completely free to change. Not to make your life difficult Marilia, bit this bit intrigues me.... Have you guys even begun to think of what it means to say "participants are completely free to change" (the drafts etc). parminder > Lets see what can be done in terms of schedule. Will get back about > that after the call. > > Marilia > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:55 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Marilia/ Adam > > Extension of deadline is very much needed. especially since the > WGEC will finish its work on the 28th.. Not only a lot of us who > will be busy with WGEC need some time after that to submit inputs, > what happens or does not happen at the final WGEC meeting may have > some bearing on the inputs. So best to extend the deadline for > 10-15 days.. Best wishes. parminder > > > On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:17 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net >> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any >> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know. >> >> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an >> extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This >> should be discussed and we will keep you informed. >> >> Thanks >> Marilia >> >> Agenda: >> >> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th) >> >> Expression of Interest >> a. Report about current status >> b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar >> 15th >> >> Content contribution process >> a. Document drafting >> b. Workflow with other committees >> >> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations >> a. List of organizations >> b. Amount of seats for special invitees >> >> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser) >> a. Updates >> b. Remote participation >> >> >> >> - >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please emailmanasa at itforchange.net . >> > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 10:10:52 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:10:52 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> References: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think. Marilia On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:17 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:39 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > Yes, it would be very important. We will convey this point. We only have a > trade-off we need to try to minimize: the more time we give to inputs, the > less time EMC will have to work on an initial draft document. In the 2 days > of the meeting, we will only have about 12 hours of actual work in > sessions, so most of the people though it would be useful to have an > initial input document, which, of course, participants are completely free > to change. > > > Not to make your life difficult Marilia, bit this bit intrigues me.... > Have you guys even begun to think of what it means to say "participants are > completely free to change" (the drafts etc). > > parminder > > > > > Lets see what can be done in terms of schedule. Will get back about that > after the call. > > Marilia > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:55 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Marilia/ Adam >> >> Extension of deadline is very much needed. especially since the WGEC will >> finish its work on the 28th.. Not only a lot of us who will be busy with >> WGEC need some time after that to submit inputs, what happens or does not >> happen at the final WGEC meeting may have some bearing on the inputs. So >> best to extend the deadline for 10-15 days.. Best wishes. parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 20 February 2014 05:17 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee for Net >> Mundial will start in about 1h. The agenda follows below. If you have any >> suggestions concerning any of these points, please let us know. >> >> Adam already signaled in the list that some people would like to request an >> extension of the deadline for contributions (currently March 1). This >> should be discussed and we will keep you informed. >> >> Thanks >> Marilia >> >> Agenda: >> >> Briefing of NETmundial Board meeting (Feb 14th) >> >> Expression of Interest >> a. Report about current status >> b. Selection criteria for participants and workflow between Feb 28th~Mar >> 15th >> >> Content contribution process >> a. Document drafting >> b. Workflow with other committees >> >> Executive Secretariat special invitations to international organizations >> a. List of organizations >> b. Amount of seats for special invitees >> >> Report from LOC (Inviting Hartmut Glaser) >> a. Updates >> b. Remote participation >> >> >> >> - >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associatewww.diplomacy.edu >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net. >> >> >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri Feb 21 11:01:45 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:01:45 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: References: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think. Hi Marilia At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as initial input into the process that created the output document. This initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to reach consensus in favor of proposed changes. If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the “initial input”. I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document. Greetings, Norbert From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 12:27:05 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:27:05 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> References: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, thanks for this comment. The information that EMC members received was that the chair of the meeting, Mr. Virgilio, expected to have an initial input to the Meeting. His understanding was that it would be a task for the EMC to produce this initial input based on the contributions received. According to my understanding, meeting participants would be free to do whatever they want with that document. It would be only an initial input. If it is good, it can be used as the basis for further work. If it is not, it can be changed. If it is awful (hope not), it can be discarded. My own opinion is that with approximately 12 hours of work during the two days and no possibility to divide participants in two tracks due to limitations of the venue it is important to have at least a starting point. Of course, I will convey different opinions. Best Marília On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial > > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the > > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not > > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think. > > Hi Marilia > > At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as > initial input into the process that created the output document. This > initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the > very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to > reach consensus in favor of proposed changes. > > If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite > plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the > "initial input". > > I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not > with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The > compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a > compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw > upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 21 12:57:28 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 02:57:28 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: References: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> Message-ID: Hi Marilia, On Feb 22, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Norbert, thanks for this comment. The information that EMC members received was that the chair of the meeting, Mr. Virgilio, expected to have an initial input to the Meeting. His understanding was that it would be a task for the EMC to produce this initial input based on the contributions received. > > According to my understanding, meeting participants would be free to do whatever they want with that document. It would be only an initial input. If it is good, it can be used as the basis for further work. If it is not, it can be changed. If it is awful (hope not), it can be discarded. My own opinion is that with approximately 12 hours of work during the two days and no possibility to divide participants in two tracks due to limitations of the venue it is important to have at least a starting point. This is my understanding as well. Although the official agenda time is 8.5 hours of plenary: 4 on the roadmap topic and 4.5 on principles (or is it the other way round?) Then we'll have some evening sessions perhaps. Whether it is a single document or a package I don't think is all that clear. I can imagine different outcomes on the two issues. But we still need to work on modalities. It might be helpful is we had a discussion about how we will get from the first documents, that is the synthesis paper and contributions (available around March 15th I think), to documents we can take into the meeting on April 23rd. What kind of output would we like? What's our goal? Given the known limitations, what goal(s) can we aim for? > Of course, I will convey different opinions. > I actually disagree with what I understand Norbert is suggesting. Starting with a blank slate would create a process favoring those with the financial resources to attend the meeting, or a best the ability to stay online for 2 days trusting remote access (impossible for anyone without robust broadband access and power - and then there's simple things like time zone.) Unless I am missing something. Best, Adam > Best > Marília > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial > > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the > > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not > > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think. > > Hi Marilia > > At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as > initial input into the process that created the output document. This > initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the > very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to > reach consensus in favor of proposed changes. > > If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite > plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the > “initial input”. > > I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not > with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The > compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a > compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw > upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 13:15:35 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:15:35 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: References: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> Message-ID: > > > It might be helpful is we had a discussion about how we will get from the > first documents, that is the synthesis paper and contributions (available > around March 15th I think), to documents we can take into the meeting on > April 23rd. What kind of output would we like? What's our goal? > Exactly. We need to discuss our goals and build strategy to achieve them. In addition, we can certainly present inputs about how to build the draft input document, how to put it online under public consultation before the Meeting and how to better take advantage of our time during the conference. We should push and offer suggestions for the implementation of join letter on the deliberative processes for the meeting. Marília > > > > Best > > Marília > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial > > > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the > > > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not > > > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think. > > > > Hi Marilia > > > > At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as > > initial input into the process that created the output document. This > > initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the > > very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to > > reach consensus in favor of proposed changes. > > > > If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite > > plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the > > "initial input". > > > > I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not > > with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The > > compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a > > compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw > > upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > -- > > Marília Maciel > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Feb 21 13:27:30 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 19:27:30 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: References: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> Message-ID: <53079A92.5060202@wzb.eu> I agree with Adam. I was in that room in Paris. The editing of the document work indeed surprisingly well. Surprisingly means it could have easily been otherwise. In Paris, this procedure workd because there were not that many people in the room, and most of the people in the room did not participate in the discussion. I would not recommend a clean slate process for Sao Paulo. We all want a constructive outcome of that meeting, and we need to develop a procedure that gets us there in a less risky manner. jeanette Am 21.02.14 18:57, schrieb Adam Peake: > Hi Marilia, > > On Feb 22, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Hi Norbert, thanks for this comment. The information that EMC members received was that the chair of the meeting, Mr. Virgilio, expected to have an initial input to the Meeting. His understanding was that it would be a task for the EMC to produce this initial input based on the contributions received. >> >> According to my understanding, meeting participants would be free to do whatever they want with that document. It would be only an initial input. If it is good, it can be used as the basis for further work. If it is not, it can be changed. If it is awful (hope not), it can be discarded. My own opinion is that with approximately 12 hours of work during the two days and no possibility to divide participants in two tracks due to limitations of the venue it is important to have at least a starting point. > > > This is my understanding as well. Although the official agenda time is 8.5 hours of plenary: 4 on the roadmap topic and 4.5 on principles (or is it the other way round?) Then we'll have some evening sessions perhaps. > > Whether it is a single document or a package I don't think is all that clear. I can imagine different outcomes on the two issues. But we still need to work on modalities. > > It might be helpful is we had a discussion about how we will get from the first documents, that is the synthesis paper and contributions (available around March 15th I think), to documents we can take into the meeting on April 23rd. What kind of output would we like? What's our goal? > > Given the known limitations, what goal(s) can we aim for? > > >> Of course, I will convey different opinions. >> > > > I actually disagree with what I understand Norbert is suggesting. Starting with a blank slate would create a process favoring those with the financial resources to attend the meeting, or a best the ability to stay online for 2 days trusting remote access (impossible for anyone without robust broadband access and power - and then there's simple things like time zone.) Unless I am missing something. > > Best, > > Adam > > > >> Best >> Marília >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial >>> input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the >>> discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not >>> discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think. >> >> Hi Marilia >> >> At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as >> initial input into the process that created the output document. This >> initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the >> very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to >> reach consensus in favor of proposed changes. >> >> If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite >> plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the >> “initial input”. >> >> I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not >> with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The >> compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a >> compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw >> upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> -- >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From avri at acm.org Mon Feb 3 09:51:35 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 09:51:35 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52EFACF7.4000403@acm.org> Hi, On 03-Feb-14 09:05, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Agree. It would be important to incorporate this in our contributions. > March 1st is the deadline. > > Very much agree that we need to substantive and need to submit substantive comments that are from the CS perspectives by the deadline. > On Monday, February 3, 2014, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 3 Feb 2014, at 3:51 am, Ian Peter > wrote: > >> Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask >> to aid industry dominance with no governmental involvement >> whatsoever. This does not make sense to me. In all of the multistakeholder models, there is great care to include governments. There is a strong desire on the part of many to get more parts of government included such as their parliamentarians, regulators and data protection officers, among others. I think that any model that does not include the multiplicity of stakeholders including government, isn't a multistakeholder scheme, and to use it as an example of a multistakeholder scheme just sets up an easy target. >> And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all >> stakeholders have equal power in this – civil society arguments do >> not carry the weight of the large internet corporations, and to >> pretend that ms-ism somehow changes this imbalance is either naive >> or deliberately misleading. Well at the risk of running into accusations of naivete or worse, I think it depends. Civil Society can have great power when it uses it uses it. And we have seen it do so in many areas of advocacy. But when CS cannot organize itself in a way that allows it to use its incredible power, then it doesn't have power. Our power takes many forms but usually involves coordinated activity on a particular goal in a similar direction. But until we figure out what we want to direct ourselves toward, we can't coordinate our actions. If killing the multistakeholder model is our goal, a model I believe CS has the power to kill, I believe we will weaken CS, not strengthen it. >> I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way >> the agenda is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles >> for governance, and this word multistakeholderism is going to be >> front and centre. I think we need to unwrap it a little and state >> clearly that the real issues going on are between governmental and >> industry control, neither of which of itself is of itself a >> satisfactory model. Which is the reason I thought we were working toward a multistaekholder model that includes all stakeholders. > > Brilliantly put Ian. Agree that this will be a key differentiator > between what civil society puts forward for the meeting and what (if > anything) 1net may put forward. /1net is only providing a aggregation point to make the process scalable. Of course CS is going to put out it own statements/contributions with its own messages. I do not think anyone ever said anything other than that. I look forward to contributing to BB efforts on a statement. I just hope its focus is not the destruction of the multistakeholder model. That I would not be able to support. avri From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 21 15:08:30 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:08:30 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: Survey on Civil Society Steering Group options Message-ID: From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Survey on Civil Society Steering Group options Below is a link to a survey set up so that you can input your thoughts on the future of the Civil Society Steering Group – which was set up in haste to deal with some nomination issues where it was important that civil society present joint nominations. The aim is to expand this group and your input is welcome into how this should be done. Survey closes end of February. http://igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=75933&lang=en Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri Feb 21 18:35:11 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 00:35:11 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: References: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> Message-ID: <20140222003511.44d92caa@quill> Adam Peake wrote: > I actually disagree with what I understand Norbert is suggesting. > Starting with a blank slate would create a process favoring those > with the financial resources to attend the meeting, or a best the > ability to stay online for 2 days trusting remote access (impossible > for anyone without robust broadband access and power - and then > there's simple things like time zone.) Unless I am missing something. What is wrong with having a process for creating the output document of a meeting that “favors” the participants of the meeting? (Here I'm including remote participants among the participants.) Especially in view of all the controversies that we've witnessed around concerns about the legitimacy of the selection processes for the various committees including the EMC, I'd consider the legitimacy of the output document to be significantly reduced if it has key elements which do not reflect a consensus of the participants of the meeting, but which are there because the EMC put those textual elements into the “initial input” and then there was no consensus to change them. If the number of hours which are available at the meeting for working on the output document are not sufficient for creating the desired output document, and if this number of hours cannot be increased, then either there must be a truly bottom-up consensus-based preparatory process (in which all participants of the meeting can fully participate) to create the initial draft, or the scope of the intended output document must be reduced to the point where it becomes realistic for the participants of the meeting, as a group, to produce the output document during the meeting itself. Greetings, Norbert > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > > Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial > > > input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the > > > discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not > > > discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think. > > > > Hi Marilia > > > > At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO > > as initial input into the process that created the output document. > > This initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, > > during the very limited and really quite insufficient amount of > > time available, to reach consensus in favor of proposed changes. > > > > If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite > > plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the > > “initial input”. > > > > I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not > > with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. > > The compilation of contributions is still important of course, but > > as a compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can > > draw upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working > > document. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > -- > > Marília Maciel > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 22 01:07:37 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:37:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] india plans keeping data in-country as well Message-ID: <53083EA9.6060604@itforchange.net> See http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/smartbuy/national-security-council-proposes-3pronged-plan-to-protect-internet-users/article5685794.ece Not very different from what Merkel suggested for the EU... Such moves would keep taking force, unless we get better international agreements and arrangements. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Feb 22 06:00:03 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 20:00:03 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Eco-system - Strategic Panel's Report relased References: Message-ID: <4157231B-141A-4185-95C7-3915F923209A@glocom.ac.jp> Begin forwarded message: > From: Adiel Akplogan > Date: February 22, 2014 7:19:47 PM GMT+09:00 > To: AfrICANN list > Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Eco-system - Strategic Panel's Report relased > Reply-To: AfrICANN list > > Dear all, > > This should be of interest to this. The ICANN's Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Eco-system has just released its report. > > Basically, The Panel examined the nature of the Internet Ecosystem and structures that could be pursued to document the roles, responsibilities and commitments the actors in this system have made or could make to one another and to the community. The key deliverables of the report were to: > > • Facilitate review of the assumptions, linkages and frameworks that underlie ecosystem player responsibilities in the current Internet ecosystem, including ICANN's; > > • Seek insights on ways to maintain and enhance stewardship of all actors, including ICANN, in an evolving ecosystem; and > > • Cultivate thought leadership on ways in which ICANN and others can serve a complex set of Internet constituencies. > > The video interview with the Panel's Chair, Vint Cerf, can be found here: > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-governance-ecosystem-11feb14-en.htm > > The report itself can be found here: > > http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-20feb14-en.pdf > > Information on the panel members, webinars and consultations can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem > > The report is an important contribution to discussions, including informing ICANN's strategic planning process. Please do provide thoughts and input to the report. Comments can be shared here or directly to ioepanel at icann.org. > > Thanks. > > - a. > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann From rishab.bailey at gmail.com Sat Feb 22 13:49:21 2014 From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 00:19:21 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Open Letter by Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil, April, 2014 Message-ID: Dear Friends, Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year, regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting. This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance space. (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows: 1. Centre for Communication Governance 2. Centre for Internet and Society 3. Digital Empowerment Foundation 4. Free Software Movement of India 5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy 6. Internet Democracy Project 7. IT for Change 8. Open Knowledge Community 9. Society for Knowledge Commons 10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India) We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014) (together with any further endorsements received). Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do let me know at the earliest possible. Thanks and regards, Rishab Bailey for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NetMundial - Appointment of CS co-chair.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 96371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From glaser at cgi.br Sat Feb 22 06:56:20 2014 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 08:56:20 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Report of the Panel on the Internet Ecosystem Message-ID: <53089064.8020906@cgi.br> FYI Hartmut Glaaer ==================================================== All, Perhaps of interest to the discussions on Internet governance overall is the recently released report of ICANN's Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Eco-system. The Panel examined the nature of the Internet Ecosystem and structures that could be pursued to document the roles, responsibilities and commitments the actors in this system have made or could make to one another and to the community. The key deliverables of the report were to: - Facilitate review of the assumptions, linkages and frameworks that underlie ecosystem player responsibilities in the current Internet ecosystem, including ICANN's; - Seek insights on ways to maintain and enhance stewardship of all actors, including ICANN, in an evolving ecosystem; and - Cultivate thought leadership on ways in which ICANN and others can serve a complex set of Internet constituencies. The video interview with the Panel's Chair, Vint Cerf, can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-governance-ecosystem-11feb14-en.htm The report itself can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-20feb14-en.pdf Information on the panel members, webinars and consultations can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem The report is an important contribution to discussions, including informing ICANN's strategic planning process. Please do provide thoughts and input to the report. Apologies if this message ends up on duplicate lists!! vint cerf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Feb 21 12:21:57 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:21:57 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [CoNE-elist 632] Agenda EMC meeting In-Reply-To: <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> References: <5305ED29.7040601@itforchange.net> <530727B9.2020000@itforchange.net> <20140221170145.529b1d03@quill> Message-ID: Hello all, Attached is the agenda for the first meeting of the HLMC, which will be held Monday the 24th. I have no other information about the meeting, but will be participating remotely, along with several others. This is a short meeting, but I will report back with a brief summary, following Marilia’s excellent model. Any advice/comments you would like to pass along to me would be gratefully received. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin NCUC High Level Multistakeholder Committee Meeting Date: February 24th, 2014, Barcelona Time: 16:30~18:00 UTC / 17:30~19:00 CET Agenda: 1. Welcome and introduction of participants (Minister Paulo Bernardo) (5 min) 2. Introduction of NETmundial (Minister Paulo Bernardo) (5 min) 3. Briefing of the NETmundial structure and workflow (Secretary Virgilio Almeida) (10 min) a. Background b. Objectives and expected outcomes c. Committees and interactions among them d. Content contribution process e. Synthesis paper and document drafting f. Important dates g. HLMC roles and Agenda 4. Open Floor & Discussion (40 min) 5. Summary and Closing Remarks (10 min) On Feb 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, all I know is that this document will be an initial >> input to the meeting. That's all. I have no idea of how the >> discussions in the meeting are going to take place. This was not >> discussed by the EMC and it is hard to predict, I think. > > Hi Marilia > > At the Paris WSIS+10 there was a draft document provided by UNESCO as > initial input into the process that created the output document. This > initial input got changed to the extent that it was possible, during the > very limited and really quite insufficient amount of time available, to > reach consensus in favor of proposed changes. > > If that kind of process is used again, then it is I think quite > plausible to predict that the outcome document would resemble the > “initial input”. > > I'd strongly prefer the work of the São Paulo meeting to start not > with a pre-prepared initial draft document, but with a blank slate. The > compilation of contributions is still important of course, but as a > compilation of ideas that the participants of the meeting can draw > upon for proposing additions to the (initially empty) working document. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Sun Feb 23 20:09:46 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:09:46 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [aisi-ig-l] The 2014 IGF Themes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Nnenna, All, Thanks for sending this report. Just a small correction: the theme number 1 was finally "Policies enabling Access". The rest of the themes are like you have shared. 2. Content Creation, Dissemination and Use 3. Internet as engine for growth & Development 4. IGF and the Future of Internet ecosystem 5. Enhancing Digital Trust 6. Internet and Human Rights 7. Critical Internet Resources 8. Emerging Issues Best Regards, Fatima 2014-02-21 7:58 GMT-03:00 Nnenna Nwakanma : > > Below and attached are the propsed IGF Themes for 2014 as adopted by the > IGF/MAG meeting in Geneva yesterday: > > > > 1. Local policies enabling Internet Access > > 2. Content Creation, Dissemination and Use > > 3. Internet as an engine for growth and development > > 4. IGF and the Future of Internet ecosystem > > 5. Enhancing Digital Trust > > 6. Internet and Human Rights > > 7. Critical Internet Resources > > 8. Emerging Issues > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ceo at bnnrc.net Mon Feb 24 05:11:21 2014 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:11:21 +0600 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open Letter by Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil, April, 2014 In-Reply-To: <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: We would be very happy if you include *Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) *as endorsement organisation. *Bazlu* ________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|* Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) *[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]* House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|* Bangladesh*|* Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr cbd at gmail.com *|* www.bnnrc.net On 24 February 2014 16:04, Avis Momeni wrote: > > Dear Rishab, > Greetings from Cameroon, > May be it will be appropriated in this letter when disagree Prof. Virgilio > Almeida's choice, to propose a consensus person that all of you as civil > societies organizations would like to be appointed in regards of the > challenges you are all looking for. > > Kind regards. > Avis. > > Avis MOMENI > Secretary General > PROTEGE QV > P.O Box 4888 Yaounde > Tel/Fax:(237) 22.31.85.46 > CAMEROON > Please take a few glances > at: www.protegeqv.org > > > > > Le Samedi 22 février 2014 19h50, Rishab Bailey > a écrit : > > Dear Friends, > > Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to > send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on > the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year, > regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting. > > This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society > organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance > space. > > (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows: > 1. Centre for Communication Governance > 2. Centre for Internet and Society > 3. Digital Empowerment Foundation > 4. Free Software Movement of India > 5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy > 6. Internet Democracy Project > 7. IT for Change > 8. Open Knowledge Community > 9. Society for Knowledge Commons > 10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India) > > We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014) > (together with any further endorsements received). > > Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do > let me know at the earliest possible. > > Thanks and regards, > Rishab Bailey > for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India > > > > ---------------------------------------- > This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing > governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social > justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a > biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net. > ---------------------------------------- > This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing > governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social > justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a > biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 24 06:21:44 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:51:44 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open Letter by Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil, April, 2014 In-Reply-To: <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <530B2B48.3000706@itforchange.net> In the current circumstances, I think it is best that one of the three civil society members of the High Level Committee (HLC) should be picked up as civil society co-chair... All the three HLC members came through a civil society nomination process. This is what got done in the case of academic community co chair.. One of three HLC academic community members - Jeanette - was picked as academic community co chair. It will be good if the major civil society networks can support the letter from India civil society, and together propose the above way to go forward.... Whatever we do needs to be done fast, in the next 2-3 days.. Can the respective coordinators etc take up the task.. thanks parminder On Monday 24 February 2014 03:34 PM, Avis Momeni wrote: > Dear Rishab, > Greetings from Cameroon, > May be it will be appropriated in this letter when disagree Prof. Virgilio Almeida's choice, to propose a consensus person that all of you as civil societies organizations would like to be appointed in regards of the challenges you are all looking for. > > Kind regards. > Avis. > > Avis MOMENI > Secretary General > PROTEGE QV > P.O Box 4888 Yaounde > Tel/Fax:(237) 22.31.85.46 > CAMEROON > Please take a few glances > at: www.protegeqv.org > > > > > Le Samedi 22 février 2014 19h50, Rishab Bailey a écrit : > > Dear Friends, > > Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to > send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on > the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year, > regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting. > > This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society > organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance > space. > > (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows: > 1. Centre for Communication Governance > 2. Centre for Internet and Society > 3. Digital Empowerment Foundation > 4. Free Software Movement of India > 5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy > 6. Internet Democracy Project > 7. IT for Change > 8. Open Knowledge Community > 9. Society for Knowledge Commons > 10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India) > > We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014) > (together with any further endorsements received). > > Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do > let me know at the earliest possible. > > Thanks and regards, > Rishab Bailey > for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India > > > > ---------------------------------------- > This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net. > ---------------------------------------- > This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net. > From Andrew at gp-digital.org Mon Feb 3 10:09:34 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:09:34 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: My own thoughts on substantive proposals are: I suspect a lot of what we submit will be focused upon internet governance or broad statements of principles. Looking at the Rousseff speech do others think there is value in putting forward a proposal that any governance arrangements should guarantee those goals we think are not guaranteed adequately at the moment - in other words where the current governance system is failing. Three examples might be: 1. Net neutrality 2. Protection for personal privacy 3. Affordable access 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. I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for this in a two day conference Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: Carolina Rossini [mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com] Sent: 03 February 2014 14:05 To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Ian Peter; Andrew Puddephatt; Marilia Maciel; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Agree. It would be important to incorporate this in our contributions. March 1st is the deadline. On Monday, February 3, 2014, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: On 3 Feb 2014, at 3:51 am, Ian Peter > wrote: Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask to aid industry dominance with no governmental involvement whatsoever. And here the dominant industry players often find willing supporters in the technical community. I think civil society needs to be clear that, if it supports multistakeholderism, it is not giving support to no governmental involvement at all or to unregulated industry dominance. I think this is a real debate we have to have. And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all stakeholders have equal power in this - civil society arguments do not carry the weight of the large internet corporations, and to pretend that ms-ism somehow changes this imbalance is either naive or deliberately misleading. I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way the agenda is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles for governance, and this word multistakeholderism is going to be front and centre. I think we need to unwrap it a little and state clearly that the real issues going on are between governmental and industry control, neither of which of itself is of itself a satisfactory model. Brilliantly put Ian. Agree that this will be a key differentiator between what civil society puts forward for the meeting and what (if anything) 1net may put forward. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Feb 24 08:09:37 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:09:37 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Save the date notice - Civil Society Coordination Meeting for NetMundial Message-ID: Please save the date for this Civil Society Coordination Meeting for NetMundial, a joint civil society strategy gathering independently organised ahead of NetMundial 2014, to be held in and all day 22 April, at a venue to be confirmed soon in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Well-funded and well organized interest groups from within the technical and business communities will be advancing their agendas at the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, with the intent of securing outcomes that favour their perceived interests. Civil society's responsibility is to ensure that these outcomes do not conflict with the broader, long-term public interest. Our challenge is therefore to be equally well organised as the other stakeholder representatives, even though we do not enjoy the same funding and staffing resources that they do. This event will provide an opportunity for us to consolidate and take stock of the work that we have done in preparing for the meeting, with the objective of empowering civil society participants to present a unified and effective front at the meeting (as far as possible, and as consistent with our diversity). The meeting is open only to those who identify as civil society in it's wider sense. Please register your interest in attending here: http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination If you do not have any source of travel funding for NetMundial 2014 and would like to be considered for travel support, you can also indicate this on the registration page. Please note that travel support will only be given to those who have also registered for NetMundial 2014, and you must separately register for both events. Please note that NetMundial have the deadline of Feb, 28th for "expression of interest", which should be done here: http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression If you are already booking your ticket, please, have in mind we will also have an strategical dinner on April, 21st. This meeting is a joint initiative of Association for Progressive Communications - APC , Global Article 19, Brazil BestBits, Global Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression - CELE, Argentina Derechos Digitales, Chile Global Partners Digital, UK Institutito de Defesa do Consumidor - IDEC, Brazil Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade - ITS, Brazil WebWeWant, Global Arrangements for the meeting are being made collaboratively by a group of volunteers drawn from the above organisations and networks, and you too can join. If you are interested to collaborate with the organization of this event or even to expand Civil Society activities surrounding NetMundial, please reply off-list and we will fill you in on the tasks where your input and assistance is needed. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Feb 24 08:49:15 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:19:15 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open Letter by Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil, April, 2014 In-Reply-To: <530B2B48.3000706@itforchange.net> References: <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <530B2B48.3000706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I don't think we should provide an alternative ourselves - that is not the point, and if the organisers have appointed a member of the HLMC as co-chair for another stakeholder group, they know that this is an option. We could perhaps indicate that the Joint NomCom under Ian's leadership is ready to provide any support or feedback that the Chair might need on this decision - that is if the Joint NomCom agrees to taking up this role of course. Best, Anja On 24 February 2014 16:51, parminder wrote: > > In the current circumstances, I think it is best that one of the three > civil society members of the High Level Committee (HLC) should be picked up > as civil society co-chair... All the three HLC members came through a > civil society nomination process. This is what got done in the case of > academic community co chair.. One of three HLC academic community members - > Jeanette > - was picked as academic community co chair. > > It will be good if the major civil society networks can support the letter > from India civil society, and together propose the above way to go > forward.... > > Whatever we do needs to be done fast, in the next 2-3 days.. > > Can the respective coordinators etc take up the task.. > > thanks > > parminder > > > > On Monday 24 February 2014 03:34 PM, Avis Momeni wrote: > >> Dear Rishab, >> Greetings from Cameroon, >> May be it will be appropriated in this letter when disagree Prof. >> Virgilio Almeida's choice, to propose a consensus person that all of you as >> civil societies organizations would like to be appointed in regards of the >> challenges you are all looking for. >> >> Kind regards. >> Avis. >> >> Avis MOMENI >> Secretary General >> PROTEGE QV >> P.O Box 4888 Yaounde >> Tel/Fax:(237) 22.31.85.46 >> CAMEROON >> Please take a few glances >> at: www.protegeqv.org >> >> >> >> Le Samedi 22 février 2014 19h50, Rishab Bailey >> a écrit : >> Dear Friends, >> >> Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to >> send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on >> the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year, >> regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting. >> >> This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society >> organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance >> space. >> >> (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows: >> 1. Centre for Communication Governance >> 2. Centre for Internet and Society >> 3. Digital Empowerment Foundation >> 4. Free Software Movement of India >> 5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy >> 6. Internet Democracy Project >> 7. IT for Change >> 8. Open Knowledge Community >> 9. Society for Knowledge Commons >> 10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India) >> >> We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014) >> (together with any further endorsements received). >> >> Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do >> let me know at the earliest possible. >> >> Thanks and regards, >> Rishab Bailey >> for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing >> governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social >> justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a >> biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net. >> ---------------------------------------- >> This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing >> governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social >> justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a >> biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Feb 24 18:07:17 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:07:17 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open Letter by Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil, April, 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1393236260.55009.YahooMailNeo@web172101.mail.ir2.yahoo.com><530B2B48.3000706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <83DC95FA3719464483AFFEEE2452055C@Toshiba> Just some background here - When I first heard rumours that this might happen – about a month ago from memory – I wrote to Adiel from 1net, Carlos Afonso, and Hartmut Glaser asking them what the process for appointment of Co-chairs was and whether they were involved. All three wrote back that they were not involved and it was a personal choice for Prof Almeida. I then wrote to Prof Almeida in a personal capacity, informing him that civil society had a representative process that could be utilised if he would like advice from us, and would he like us to submit a slate of names for his consideration? Indeed I indicated a few likely names in my letter of people we might nominate as examples – just to ensure that it could not be said that only one name was submitted. I never received a reply. I am also aware that, after the appointment, the civil society 1net steering committee representatives raised questions, and were officially told that this was out of scope because this was a decision for the Chair. However, I believe that they were told informally in the Webex record that 1net would have been consulted before a decision was made. Which, given that 1net is the co-organiser of the conference, I suspect is the case, although I am 100% sure what Adiel told me was true from his perspective. (likewise for Carlos and Hartmut of course) Given that Subi’s past involvement with civil society on internet governance issues is largely related to her MAG membership, I suspect what happened is that some prominent member/members of the technical community active in MAG matters were informally asked to submit a name or comment on the suggestion of Subi (she would have written and offered her services, I am sure.),and without any further thought did so. After all, they are used to making decisions without consultation with other stakeholder representatives and multistakeholder processes of consultation where civil society should be involved in civil society appointments are quite new to them. That’s my hypothesis at this point of time. So I don’t feel inclined to blame Prof Almeida – rather, whoever it was who recommended her to Prof Almeida without consulting civil society has to learn this is not appropriate process. Perhaps someone reading here could copy this to the appropriate person and make it known that next time it would be advisable to refer such suggestions to the appropriate stakeholder group. Given how quickly all of this happened and the fairly chaotic nature of Brazil preparations, I am inclined to think it was just a thoughtless action from someone who I hope will learn from this experience and refer such suggestions appropriately next time. So while I am pleased to see the Indian letter raising these questions and think it is entirely appropriate to raise them, I think it is simply the result of poorly considered rushed processes and a history of not consulting other stakeholder groups, and that hopefully those responsible will learn from this mistake. Ian Peter From: Anja Kovacs Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:49 AM To: parminder Cc: Avis Momeni ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; cone-elist at net-equality.org ; Best Bits Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: [CoNE-elist 679] Re: Open Letter by Indian civil society organizations to the Chair of the 'MMFIG' being held in Brazil, April, 2014 I don't think we should provide an alternative ourselves - that is not the point, and if the organisers have appointed a member of the HLMC as co-chair for another stakeholder group, they know that this is an option. We could perhaps indicate that the Joint NomCom under Ian's leadership is ready to provide any support or feedback that the Chair might need on this decision - that is if the Joint NomCom agrees to taking up this role of course. Best, Anja On 24 February 2014 16:51, parminder wrote: In the current circumstances, I think it is best that one of the three civil society members of the High Level Committee (HLC) should be picked up as civil society co-chair... All the three HLC members came through a civil society nomination process. This is what got done in the case of academic community co chair.. One of three HLC academic community members - Jeanette - was picked as academic community co chair. It will be good if the major civil society networks can support the letter from India civil society, and together propose the above way to go forward.... Whatever we do needs to be done fast, in the next 2-3 days.. Can the respective coordinators etc take up the task.. thanks parminder On Monday 24 February 2014 03:34 PM, Avis Momeni wrote: Dear Rishab, Greetings from Cameroon, May be it will be appropriated in this letter when disagree Prof. Virgilio Almeida's choice, to propose a consensus person that all of you as civil societies organizations would like to be appointed in regards of the challenges you are all looking for. Kind regards. Avis. Avis MOMENI Secretary General PROTEGE QV P.O Box 4888 Yaounde Tel/Fax:(237) 22.31.85.46 CAMEROON Please take a few glances at: www.protegeqv.org Le Samedi 22 février 2014 19h50, Rishab Bailey a écrit : Dear Friends, Attached is an open letter Indian civil society organisations propose to send to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, Chair of the Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance being held in Brazil in April this year, regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting. This letter has been agreed on by virtually every civil society organisation in India who have been involved in the Internet Governance space. (the list of organisations - in alphabetical order - is as follows: 1. Centre for Communication Governance 2. Centre for Internet and Society 3. Digital Empowerment Foundation 4. Free Software Movement of India 5. Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy 6. Internet Democracy Project 7. IT for Change 8. Open Knowledge Community 9. Society for Knowledge Commons 10. Software Freedom Law Centre, India) We plan to submit this letter to the Chair on Monday (24th February, 2014) (together with any further endorsements received). Should you or your organisation wish to support / endorse this letter, do let me know at the earliest possible. Thanks and regards, Rishab Bailey for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India ---------------------------------------- This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net. ---------------------------------------- This is an elist of "Coalition on Net Equality", devoted to discussing governance of the global Internet from an equity, democracy and social justice point of view. To unsubscribe, or change to a daily digest or a biweekly report, please email manasa at itforchange.net. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Feb 25 01:42:18 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:12:18 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] It is isnt about privacy, it is about pervasive social control Message-ID: <530C3B4A.1060606@itforchange.net> Last year Michael Gurstein wrote this blog post http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/snowden-isnt-just-about-surveillance-it-is-much-much-much-worse/ Now see this news story "The Paragraph Began to Self-Delete": Did NSA Hack Computer of Snowden Biographer & Edit Book Draft? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFO6-Efiz9k&list=TLQKcRblWeSRn2b96VGW4i3KurBC8Vx-1_ parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Tue Feb 25 05:36:52 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:36:52 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com> <0b7b01cf272a$123ef7e0$36bce7a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Anja, dear all, I'm very late in replying to this thread but I had taken note I *did* want to reply, as there are some important points being raised here. For the record, I'm not speaking *on behalf* of the European Commission right now, although most of what I am saying is based on the official position of the European Commission on Internet governance, as recently adopted on 12.2.2014 (Communication on Internet Policy and Governance - Europe's role in shaping the future of the Internet, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2014:0072:FIN:EN:HTML ). On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Michael, > > My apologies for the gaps in my replies, it's been a challenge keeping up > with email this month, but I did still want to respond. Please see inline. > > > On 11 February 2014 18:35, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Hi Anja, >> >> >> >> Inline... >> >> >> >> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:03 AM >> >> *To:* michael gurstein >> *Cc:* Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; >> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG >> >> >> >> Dear Michael, >> >> 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. >> >> *[MG>] I'd be very interested to see this... However, I think it is >> important to distinguish between decentralization of processes and >> decentralization of power... the first without the second is simply making >> busywork... my feeling is that much of discussion that you are pointing to >> is concerned with this ...* >> >> *Decentralizing/deconcentrating centralized power comes not through >> decentralizing processes but through challenging and contesting for power - >> a situation where "decentralization" of one's forces would seem to be a >> recipe for failure... * >> > [AK]: Yes, that is a good point. But at the same time, I would presume > that you would also not want that centralised force to be a concentrated > one (as in, limited to a very few players who then ultimately become > extremely powerful, be these players from civil society or another > stakeholder group). Any suggestions then how to strengthen the force, but > not the concentration? > I'm very much looking forward to the (interim) results of Anja's (and I guess other people's?) work. The notion of a "map" and ways to navigate it were already raised a number of years ago - including by Switzerland and the European Union - at one of the various Geneva-based preparatory meetings. The European Commission discussed it for some time with EU Member States. It seems to me that there is quite some consensus for this idea. This is also one of the rationales behind an initiative that the European Commission has been working on for some time, i.e. the idea of a Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO). I think I have already bothered people extensively about this, so I will not elaborate too much; this is simply to say that that in my view it is not sufficient to "build a map", one also has to design the tools to make sure that the map is updated. In my experience sustainability has to be in-built in any approach for it to succeed. (And by the way and before people jump up and down, GIPO is not a new idea per se and certainly took inspiration, consciously or unconsciously, by many people / organisations which are active in the Internet (governance) space). On the issue of decentralisation of process / decentralisation of power, I think it is an important distinction to make; and we would be naive not to recognise that an often-used tactic by everyone who has power in a particular moment (which is not only governments or businesses, by the way - I saw the same technique used by many NGOs, sometimes for meritorious, sometimes for rather nefarious reasons) is to create "yet another discussion". I think a certain dose of duplication and "let's create something new" is unavoidable as the importance of the Internet grows and is recognised as such. I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing - it can also functions a a counter-weight to the "old boys' / girls' club" mentality. Call me naive, but I do think that if the right tools to gather / process / use information are in place, more diversification becomes a tool for progressive change, not for ossification. 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. >> >> *[MG>] Potentially interesting but again I'd like to see the details* >> >> [AK]: Work in progress... > Civil servants do not often get to ask this question - we are usually on the receiving end of (irate) requests to this effect - so pardon me if I ask: any Estimated Time of Arrival? :) > 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. >> >> *[MG>] Potentially true particularly if there was something more than >> busywork processes involved in these multiple venues, but again need >> details... (there were none in the short paper that you pointed to, which was >> part of the reason for my reacting as I did... * >> >> *As an example, the challenge in the WIPO discussions I believe, was to >> create a real venue for LDC participation and get away from the multiple >> empty technical and narrowly focused discussions that (were deliberately >> designed?) to sap the LDC energies and resources... it was only when the >> LDC's insisted on a specific framework to address their issues that any >> real progress (from their perspective) was achieved..* >> >> [AK]: But isn't this then something that can be done in multiple Internet > governance venues as well? As I have said before, I really think we have to > move away from thinking of the Internet as an issue, to thinking of it as a > space. That is an argument in favour of recognising different venues as > being the appropriate places to discuss and decide on different Internet > governance issues. But arguing in favour of such decentralisation doesn't > stop us from also arguing in favour of an overarching framework that guides > both the development of this architecture in itself and the processes that > take place in the various different segments of it. > I'm not sure you'll be happy to read this, Anja (just joking :) but this combination, i.e. (1) moving to issue-based, rather than organisation-based, approaches; on the basis of (2) collectively developed, rules-based frameworks for engagement, looks quite similar to the position of the European Commission as expressed in its Communicaton of 12.2.2014 (see beginning of my email for references). E.g.: "*Stronger interactions between stakeholders involved in Internet governance should be fostered via issue-based dialogues, instead of through new bodies. This would allow relevant stakeholders to address specific challenges across structural and organisational boundaries. Such arrangements could be inspired by the distributed architecture of the Internet which should serve as a model for better interactions between all parties.*" > In fact, increasingly I am wondering whether, if we want > multistakeholderism to work, we maybe need something like a Constitution > for multistakeholder processes - not just a set of principles, but a more > detailed, binding document that outlines, for example, what kind of > criteria a particular participant (or at least non-government participant) > needs to fulfil in order to participate in a particular kind of process > (and criteria might be a little more open-ended and flexible for some > processes, more stringent for others, possibly guided by the nature of the > outcomes of the process in question). If there isn't a document that binds > us on these things, I can't really see at the moment how we can avoid > capture. > I agree - but, perhaps more importantly, the European Commission also does agree that more clarity on what we mean by "multistakeholder processes" would be helpful. See in particular section 5 of the above-mentioned Communication. Best, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gabrielle at article19.org Tue Feb 25 06:45:25 2014 From: gabrielle at article19.org (Gabrielle Guillemin) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:45:25 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] ICANN reform netmundial submission - sign on Message-ID: Hi all, Jumping in the IG conversation but from a different angle. A19 has been working on an ICANN reform proposal alongside the various best bits working streams (special thanks to Matthew from CDT, Deborah from Access and GPD for their feedback). We've also reached out to the ICANN community and other experts in Internet Governance issues such as Bill Drake, Avri Doria and Milton Mueller. You can find the result of our efforts below: * The netmundial submission is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Nk9HL6toh9ak9GV8zsmyDT2F1pDgzZmYAhX60jugCM/edit * There is a longer version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlpeMEikyi1wkF46NP9HjwC8EGFv1Sr1cJayUlZWAfg/edit - The intention is for these documents to contribute to the debate about ICANN reform which will no doubt be taking place beyond the Brazil meeting. Since the ICANN reform debate is moving fast, we would like to publish the documents in their current form and open the netmundial submission (above) for sign on by anyone who is interested in the issue and broadly supports the proposal, including members of the best bits and 1net lists. We expect to review our position beyond the Brazil meeting depending on feedback we receive. In the meantime, if you would like to sign on, please let me know by 28 February 3.00 pm GMT. We are planning to post the netmundial submission on 1 March. If anything is unclear, please let me know. Thanks very much for your support! Best wishes, Gabrielle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Tue Feb 25 21:41:30 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:41:30 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Conference: ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to Sao Paulo, and Beyond, Singapore 21 March 2014 Message-ID: <6604A0E2-8DA3-4434-B62C-50D42383A1D8@gmail.com> Hello, If interested, please see the below. Apologies if you receive this from more than one mail list. ------ "ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paulo, and Beyond" A conference to be held on Friday 21 March 2014 at the ICANN 49 meeting venue, the Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore, in the Olivia Room, from 10:00 to 18:00. Organized by the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, with the generous support of ICANN. Logistical information, conference registration (important!) and the program are now online at http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/ We very much want this to be an inclusive cross-community dialogue, so we hope people will consider attending, either in person or remotely, and please do share this with potentially interested colleagues. We are compiling some background materials related to the session topics for addition to the web site, and personal/organizational written inputs would be very much welcome. Overview of the meeting 10:00-10:15 Welcome and Overview 10:15-10:45 Update on the Sao Paulo Meeting 10:45-12:00 Panel 1 - Setting the Scene: Overview of Recent Agenda-Setting Initiatives 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:15 Panel 2 - Internet Governance Principles 14:15-15:45 Panel 3 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Globalization 15:45-16:00 Coffee break 16:00-17:30 Panel 4 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Institutional Innovation 17:15-17:45 Keynote Assessment by Larry Strickling, Asst. Secretary of Commerce, Government of the United States 17:45-18:00 Concluding Observations 18:00-19:30 Reception with Fadi Chehadé, CEO of ICANN Thanks, Bill *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 26 00:52:37 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:52:37 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Survey on Civil Society Steering Group options In-Reply-To: <7CCC2631-D33F-4D0D-937C-9F2F465D188B@Malcolm.id.au> References: <7CCC2631-D33F-4D0D-937C-9F2F465D188B@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <145383DE-F2A5-4E55-B555-437BEA5C6F8F@Malcolm.id.au> Reminder! Survey closes end of February. Below is a link to a survey set up so that you can input your thoughts on the future of the Civil Society Steering Group – which was set up in haste to deal with some nomination issues where it was important that civil society present joint nominations. The aim is to expand this group and your input is welcome into how this should be done. http://igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=75933&lang=en Thanks to those who have responded already. On 20 Feb 2014, at 11:21 am, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Below is a link to a survey set up so that you can input your thoughts on the future of the Civil Society Steering Group – which was set up in haste to deal with some nomination issues where it was important that civil society present joint nominations. The Best Bits community already has a liaison on the group (through me), but the aim is now to expand this group and your input is welcome into how this should be done. > > Survey closes end of February. > > http://igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=75933&lang=en -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Feb 26 01:40:20 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:40:20 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Contributions for NETmundial Message-ID: Contributions for the meeting are now being made available online Adam From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Feb 3 16:29:01 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:29:01 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52F00A1D.1010503@wzb.eu> Hi Andrew, all goals you mention are highly relevant. Campagning for them internationally might strengthen the impact of national initiatives. However, the government reps who will attend the meeting in SP are likely to lack the authority to commit to anything related to national regulation. Do you think that doesn't matter? jeanette Am 03.02.14 16:09, schrieb Andrew Puddephatt: > My own thoughts on substantive proposals are: > > I suspect a lot of what we submit will be focused upon internet > governance or broad statements of principles. Looking at the Rousseff > speech do others think there is value in putting forward a proposal that > any governance arrangements should guarantee those goals we think are > not guaranteed adequately at the moment – in other words where the > current governance system is failing. > > Three examples might be: > > 1.Net neutrality > > 2.Protection for personal privacy > > 3.Affordable access > > 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. > > I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement > for this in a two day conference > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*Carolina Rossini [mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 03 February 2014 14:05 > *To:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Cc:* Ian Peter; Andrew Puddephatt; Marilia Maciel; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > Agree. It would be important to incorporate this in our contributions. > March 1st is the deadline. > > > > On Monday, February 3, 2014, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 3 Feb 2014, at 3:51 am, Ian Peter > wrote: > > > > Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask to > aid industry dominance with no governmental involvement whatsoever. And > here the dominant industry players often find willing supporters in the > technical community. I think civil society needs to be clear that, if it > supports multistakeholderism, it is not giving support to no > governmental involvement at all or to unregulated industry dominance. I > think this is a real debate we have to have. > > And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all > stakeholders have equal power in this – civil society arguments do not > carry the weight of the large internet corporations, and to pretend that > ms-ism somehow changes this imbalance is either naive or deliberately > misleading. > > I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way the > agenda is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles for > governance, and this word multistakeholderism is going to be front and > centre. I think we need to unwrap it a little and state clearly that the > real issues going on are between governmental and industry control, > neither of which of itself is of itself a satisfactory model. > > Brilliantly put Ian. Agree that this will be a key differentiator > between what civil society puts forward for the meeting and what (if > anything) 1net may put forward. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ > > Open Technology Institute > > *New America Foundation* > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Feb 3 18:29:02 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 10:29:02 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <52EFACF7.4000403@acm.org> References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> <52EFACF7.4000403@acm.org> Message-ID: <94A286A8091E4BC3AC45C0A8EBB3837A@Toshiba> Hi Avri and John, I'll confine my comments to the context of the document Andrew is working on, rather than a wider ranging discussion on ms-ism. I do not think we should abandon multistakeholderism, not do I think Andrew's statement should suggest that. However, nor do I think we should give it a carte blanche endorsement or believe it is a panacea for solving every internet governance issue. If multistakeholderism is going to help us, I think we need to examine it in the context of the dominant underlying tensions here. One underlying tension is between large corporations and nation states, each of which thinks it is best placed to solve the internet's problems. Another tension is between dominant nation states and smaller less powerful nation states. Another is between large dominating corporations and new players and start-ups. And to be honest, I think in that context the opinions of the technical community, civil society and academia are not necessarily going to be helpful unless they directly address these issues, which are largely about inequity. My comments were in the context of statements which I know you have both heard that we should keep governments out of this. I am glad to see Avri's clear statement below that governments must be involved. Not all champions of multistakeholderism believe this however, which is why I think we need to be clear that our understanding of ms-ism does involve an appropriate role for governments. And in the context of representative governance I think we all know there are a lot of issues, and I am not sure which of the dominance issues mentioned above are going to be usefully addressed by establishment of an equally weighted fully supported body of stakeholders (should such a miraculous body emerge). Avri, I also agree with you re civil society not being powerless. We can be very powerful in advocacy and in activism. But I am not sure that a role in internet governance we are likely to achieve will ever replace the need for activism and advocacy. I hope that helps to clarify! Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 1:51 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Hi, On 03-Feb-14 09:05, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Agree. It would be important to incorporate this in our contributions. > March 1st is the deadline. > > Very much agree that we need to substantive and need to submit substantive comments that are from the CS perspectives by the deadline. > On Monday, February 3, 2014, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 3 Feb 2014, at 3:51 am, Ian Peter > wrote: > >> Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask >> to aid industry dominance with no governmental involvement >> whatsoever. This does not make sense to me. In all of the multistakeholder models, there is great care to include governments. There is a strong desire on the part of many to get more parts of government included such as their parliamentarians, regulators and data protection officers, among others. I think that any model that does not include the multiplicity of stakeholders including government, isn't a multistakeholder scheme, and to use it as an example of a multistakeholder scheme just sets up an easy target. >> And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all >> stakeholders have equal power in this – civil society arguments do >> not carry the weight of the large internet corporations, and to >> pretend that ms-ism somehow changes this imbalance is either naive >> or deliberately misleading. Well at the risk of running into accusations of naivete or worse, I think it depends. Civil Society can have great power when it uses it uses it. And we have seen it do so in many areas of advocacy. But when CS cannot organize itself in a way that allows it to use its incredible power, then it doesn't have power. Our power takes many forms but usually involves coordinated activity on a particular goal in a similar direction. But until we figure out what we want to direct ourselves toward, we can't coordinate our actions. If killing the multistakeholder model is our goal, a model I believe CS has the power to kill, I believe we will weaken CS, not strengthen it. >> I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way >> the agenda is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles >> for governance, and this word multistakeholderism is going to be >> front and centre. I think we need to unwrap it a little and state >> clearly that the real issues going on are between governmental and >> industry control, neither of which of itself is of itself a >> satisfactory model. Which is the reason I thought we were working toward a multistaekholder model that includes all stakeholders. > > Brilliantly put Ian. Agree that this will be a key differentiator > between what civil society puts forward for the meeting and what (if > anything) 1net may put forward. /1net is only providing a aggregation point to make the process scalable. Of course CS is going to put out it own statements/contributions with its own messages. I do not think anyone ever said anything other than that. I look forward to contributing to BB efforts on a statement. I just hope its focus is not the destruction of the multistakeholder model. That I would not be able to support. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Feb 4 01:47:26 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:47:26 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Draft submission on 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: References: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> <374E46D2-17E1-41E9-9777-3281CF5AC644@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52F08CFE.7020604@ciroap.org> On 02/02/14 23:08, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Thanks for doing this Jeremy – is this something you want to submit to > the new MAG? How can we put weight behind it? By endorsing it - I have just put it online below - and encouraging others to do so. We will then submit it to the MAG by its deadline of 10 February 2014. http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/ Thanks! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Feb 4 01:48:14 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:48:14 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> On 31/01/14 12:40, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thanks for this initiative, +1 from us. Please add the Internet > Democracy Project to the signatories. > > The only small quibble I have is that the one reference to the IGF > that is maintained (I read the conversation about this on the summit > list) continues to read a little awkwardly. I've tried to reformulate > it in a more positive way. Maybe an alternative for the first sentence > of the second para could be the following? > > /As the Brazil meeting's organisers are free to experiment with such > procedures, an important opportunity to achieve these objectives and > to thus transcend the constraints of the IGF in particular, caused by > its location within the UN system, now exists. / Thanks, that's very helpful and I've incorporated that amendment now. This statement is now online for endorsement. Please add yours at: http://bestbits.net/brazil-processes/ Thanks! (This is the second of three sign-on statements that go live today. Deborah will write about the third.) -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Feb 2 08:05:31 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 22:05:31 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> <17BA5458-7AC6-4CED-8F85-DF152167325A@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > What do you mean? The website netmundial.org is open for suggestions. > > I would hold off sending anything to the website until there is a call for contributions. This should come very soon. Reason I'm asking about the key principles statements is to get some idea about how we might plan for discussion in Sao Paulo, how to achieve the best outcome (whatever that might be - and that itself a good topic to discuss.) The agenda allows for about 4 hours of discussion, so my personal hope is we'll be able to start the meeting with some consensus on core principles that might form the basis of a universal statement -- with the universal statement, or a draft of it, an outcome of this part of the meeting. We've heard a few times that there are perhaps 25 key statements of principles. So, based on those how can we reach a rough consensus on which are the core/common/essential principles for a universal statement? One way might be to ask people to consider the key (25?) statements and from those identify which they think are the core principles, and ask for some justification for their selections. Might narrow down to a common set which can be further discussed. But to do this, do need to identify the key statements (hence my email below.) I don't know if the exec comm will agree this is a reasonable approach, or if CS will. But interested to hear. Thanks, Adam > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Carolina, > > Could you recommend the key principles statements we might consider. > > Jeremy drew up a list: > > Add President Rousseff's speech to the UN GA and also the UN "right to privacy in the digital age" (based on the Brazil+German draft, copy attached). > > Necessary and proportionate and Carl Bildt's Seoul cyber conf speech , both spoken highly of in Bali. > > Marco Civil should be consider if it passes and if Brazil wants it there. Community informatics statement (though I think a bit aspirational). > > Is that it, what am I missing? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:02 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > - He did not mentioned specific dates for the reports, but he said they are almost done. > > - I did understand that when he was saying "governance principles" they would be process focus principles. So transparency, multistakeholder, etc would be discussed, but net neutrality and things alike would not (But remember, Fadi impressions have diverged in the past from those of the Brazilian officials). Maybe this is something that should be clarified by the committees. At the end the statement "crafting internet principles" is not that clear (to say the least) > > - yes, he did agree HR should be the broader framework for all this > > - I was in a meeting yesterday with folks of the Necessary and Proportionate coalition, and I specifically suggested Katitza (EFF), Jochai (Access) and Mathew (CDT) to submit through the site the N and P principles... > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Thanks, Carol. > > This part brought my attention: > > > > "Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days." > > > > + > > The addition you guys made on Human Rights and he agreed. > > > > I wonder what is the understanding...is it that there wouldnt be space to debate specific principles such as necessary and proportionate? > > > > Do we have a date for Vint's report? > > > > > > On 29 Jan 2014 13:56, "Carolina Rossini" wrote: > > Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this group of social responsability figures out their next steps, but we can clarify > > > > Chirs is also moving to DC. > > > > No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They just called folks from civil society and think tanks in DC to meet, since Fadi was here to speak at STON > > > > C. > > > > From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Feb 4 02:31:02 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:31:02 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52F09736.7000004@ciroap.org> On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Three examples might be: > > 1. Net neutrality > > 2. Protection for personal privacy > > 3. Affordable access > > 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. > > > > I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement > for this in a two day conference > 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. 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. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Feb 4 02:54:14 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 08:54:14 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <94A286A8091E4BC3AC45C0A8EBB3837A@Toshiba> References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> <52EFACF7.4000403@acm.org> <94A286A8091E4BC3AC45C0A8EBB3837A@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20140204085414.7b8ccf27@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > I do not think we should abandon multistakeholderism, not do I think > Andrew's statement should suggest that. However, nor do I think we > should give it a carte blanche endorsement or believe it is a panacea > for solving every internet governance issue. +1 > If multistakeholderism is going to help us, I think we need to > examine it in the context of the dominant underlying tensions here. +1 > One underlying tension is between large corporations and nation > states, each of which thinks it is best placed to solve the > internet's problems. Another tension is between dominant nation > states and smaller less powerful nation states. Another is between > large dominating corporations and new players and start-ups. +1 And let's not forget the tension between the fundamentals of democracy and the unreasonably great influence (through various means) of some particular interests. Greetings, Norbert From nb at bollow.ch Tue Feb 4 03:07:52 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 09:07:52 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <52F09736.7000004@ciroap.org> References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> <232C0445-6B91-4BD0-9FC2-2A6C183EB79A@ciroap.org> <52F09736.7000004@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20140204090752.463f217a@quill> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > 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. But how can anyone reach reasonably well-founded conclusions in regard to cross-cutting principles and mechanisms without looking at particular substantive issues, and reflecting what principles and mechanisms have proved to be effective or not in those particular contexts? This process could reasonably start with looking a few issues which are relatively well understood because they have been receiving a lot of attention recently (like e.g. privacy issues), but ultimately in order to achieve a reasonable overall understanding on cross-cutting principles and mechanisms, the examples of issues that should be discussed as the basis for thereafter abstracting cross-cutting principles and mechanisms must also include other issues. In particular I believe that it is absolutely necessary to look at what are the appropriate principles and mechanisms in regard to substantive issues which so far have not been a significant part of the mainstream discourse because the people and groups who are particularly concerned about those issues were being subjected to marginalization. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Feb 4 06:38:15 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:38:15 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] report of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) finak Message-ID: <9D16E7F3-35DF-4A27-9029-403843045D44@glocom.ac.jp> Final version of the report (minutes) of the EMC's first meeting, January 27th, 2014, at: Adam From iza at anr.org Tue Feb 4 07:09:31 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:09:31 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] The Venue for IGF 2014 Istanbul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just came in. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ihsan Durdu Date: 2014-02-04 Subject: [IGFmaglist] The Venue for IGF 2014 Istanbul To: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org Dear MAG, I would like to inform you about the venue; ICC Istanbul, http://www.iccistanbul.com is reserved as the venue for IGF 2014 Istanbul. The dates for the venue are Sept 2nd thru Sept 5th. with a high level (Ministerial) on Sept 1st. I hope you all have an enjoyable time in Istanbul. We will do our best to show our hospitality. Kindest Ihsan Durdu Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications of Turkey ________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 07:16:34 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 07:16:34 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Message-ID: <906lv16n23uep0hdvdoy2bbc.1391516194605@email.android.com> 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. ... The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku best bits meeting -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Three examples might be: 1.       Net neutrality 2.       Protection for personal privacy 3.       Affordable access 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.   I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for this in a two day conference 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. 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. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Feb 4 07:20:37 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 07:20:37 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <906lv16n23uep0hdvdoy2bbc.1391516194605@email.android.com> References: <906lv16n23uep0hdvdoy2bbc.1391516194605@email.android.com> Message-ID: 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. 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. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance 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. ... The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku best bits meeting -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Three examples might be: 1. Net neutrality 2. Protection for personal privacy 3. Affordable access 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. I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for this in a two day conference 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. 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. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Feb 4 07:28:52 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 13:28:52 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <906lv16n23uep0hdvdoy2bbc.1391516194605@email.android.com> Message-ID: <52F0DD04.6010203@wzb.eu> Hi, I am not arguing against a substantive agenda as such. Who would?? However, we should not overlook operational issues and find a solution for them. One of those issues concerns the decision making authority of the attendees of the Brazil meeting. Put in more general terms, what do you expect the meeting to do about the substantive agenda? jeanette Am 04.02.2014 13:20, schrieb Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG): > > 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. > > 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. > > > —Mike > > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > *INTERNEWS*|***Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews > | facebook.com/internews > > > > From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com " > > > Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com " > > > Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM > To: "jeremy at ciroap.org " >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > " > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > 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. ... > > The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the > Baku best bits meeting > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeremy Malcolm > > Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> Three examples might be: >> >> 1.Net neutrality >> >> 2.Protection for personal privacy >> >> 3.Affordable access >> >> 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. >> >> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement >> for this in a two day conference >> > > 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. > > 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. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > Click here > > to report this email as spam. > From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 07:40:22 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 07:40:22 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Message-ID: <9ki0tfy0adlgkmwv78vk8ou6.1391517622090@email.android.com> At least suggest times and places to address these matters in an open transparent manner with broad stakeholder engagement. ....just like Brazil is supposed to be -------- Original message -------- From: Jeanette Hofmann Date: 02/04/2014 7:28 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" ,genekimmelman at gmail.com,jeremy at ciroap.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Hi, I am not arguing against a substantive agenda as such. Who would?? However, we should not overlook operational issues and find a solution for them. One of those issues concerns the decision making authority of the attendees of the Brazil meeting. Put in more general terms, what do you expect the meeting to do about the substantive agenda? jeanette Am 04.02.2014 13:20, schrieb Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG): > > 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. > > 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. > > > —Mike > > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > *INTERNEWS*|***Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews > | facebook.com/internews > > > > From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com " > > > Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com " > > > Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM > To: "jeremy at ciroap.org " >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > " > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > 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. ... > > The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the > Baku best bits meeting > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeremy Malcolm > > Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> Three examples might be: >> >> 1.Net neutrality >> >> 2.Protection for personal privacy >> >> 3.Affordable access >> >> 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. >> >> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement >> for this in a two day conference >> > > 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. > > 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. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > Click here > > to report this email as spam. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Tue Feb 4 07:41:01 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:41:01 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <52F0DD04.6010203@wzb.eu> References: <906lv16n23uep0hdvdoy2bbc.1391516194605@email.android.com> <52F0DD04.6010203@wzb.eu> Message-ID: The Brazil meeting's agenda could derive primarily from what Brazil already stated. e.g. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, said: *"We are acting internationally for the protection of human rights. This is the main guidance from our government, to protect freedom of expression, human rights and privacy. We are determined to continue on this path"* That's broad enough, short enough, and at least someone should agree. Louis - - - On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, I am not arguing against a substantive agenda as such. Who would?? > However, we should not overlook operational issues and find a solution for > them. One of those issues concerns the decision making authority of the > attendees of the Brazil meeting. Put in more general terms, what do you > expect the meeting to do about the substantive agenda? > > jeanette > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Sun Feb 2 08:57:16 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 14:57:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] What set of problems should the "principles" address? (was Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC) In-Reply-To: References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> <17BA5458-7AC6-4CED-8F85-DF152167325A@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <20140202145716.5fdfcd75@quill> Adam Peake wrote: > We've heard a few times that there are perhaps 25 key statements of > principles. So, based on those how can we reach a rough consensus on > which are the core/common/essential principles for a universal > statement? Each statement of principles speaks to a certain perception of a set of problems. When it guides actions, a statement of principles can become part of the solution to that set of problems. I would suggest that the process towards a “universal statement” of principles needs to begin with building a shared understanding of the set of problems that this “universal statement” would contribute to solving. Greetings, Norbert From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu Tue Feb 4 08:52:34 2014 From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:52:34 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <906lv16n23uep0hdvdoy2bbc.1391516194605@email.android.com> Message-ID: Mike strongly agreed with Andrew and Gene and I strongly agree with Mike!! This exchange of emails and ideas of course is useful but my view is that an important goal of BB might be to set up the CS agenda for the meeting in Brazil. To do so, it will be important to submit a short and substantive document. Of course it will not be easy to have a general agreement among us, but I encourage all of us to be flexible and only oppose on issues that are contrary to fundamental principles or past agreements. I agree with Andrew proposal. At the same time I understand Jeremy M concerns in limiting the statement to the three themes proposed by Andrew. But having a discussion now about what should be included and how the list should be expanded, it could lead us to a never end discussion. That´s why I agree with Andrew. Best e Eduardo On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > > 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. > > 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. > > > --Mike > > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM > To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > 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. ... > > The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku > best bits meeting > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Three examples might be: > > 1. Net neutrality > > 2. Protection for personal privacy > > 3. Affordable access > > 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. > > > > I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for > this in a two day conference > > > 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. > > 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. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > Click hereto report this email as spam. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 09:02:16 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:02:16 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy and all, The topic of models for deliberation are very important. Thanks for raising it. My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be worthy. Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. If we dont work with one single document posted for comments, are we suggesting that everybody (at least each stakeholder group) should be able to post their documents for comments? Then how productive and cross-stakeholder would that be? Would stakeholders interact, or work to improve their own documents? Plus, there are huge challenges to shynthetize online contributions in a way that we "arrive at some point" and not just at another compilation. How do we propose that organizers make a synthesis of several documents being commented and evolving on different directions? I think that online consultations are a great idea. We have seen how effective they can be in our national examples. But I think they need to be carefully conceived and thought-thorough. My feeling either is that we take the time to think it through and propose something very clear and concrete to the organizers, or they wont probably invest their resources on that. But then, shouldn't we better focus on the actual dynamics of the meeting? Best, Marília On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 31/01/14 12:40, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Thanks for this initiative, +1 from us. Please add the Internet > Democracy Project to the signatories. > > The only small quibble I have is that the one reference to the IGF that is > maintained (I read the conversation about this on the summit list) > continues to read a little awkwardly. I've tried to reformulate it in a > more positive way. Maybe an alternative for the first sentence of the > second para could be the following? > > *As the Brazil meeting's organisers are free to experiment with such > procedures, an important opportunity to achieve these objectives and to > thus transcend the constraints of the IGF in particular, caused by its > location within the UN system, now exists. * > > > Thanks, that's very helpful and I've incorporated that amendment now. > > This statement is now online for endorsement. Please add yours at: > > http://bestbits.net/brazil-processes/ > > Thanks! > > (This is the second of three sign-on statements that go live today. > Deborah will write about the third.) > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 09:13:02 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:13:02 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Just one very brief update. One of the topics of the next EMC teleconference will be "Meeting format: activities within sessions". That would be a good opportunity to raise the point of on-site deliberation and make proposals, I think.If there are suggestions, I would be more than happy to convey. M On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Jeremy and all, > > The topic of models for deliberation are very important. Thanks for > raising it. > > My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for > on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the > Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the > organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best > model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If > we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer > assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be > worthy. > > Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected > timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) > and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. > Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by > the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be > the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are > likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present > moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or > frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. > > If we dont work with one single document posted for comments, are we > suggesting that everybody (at least each stakeholder group) should be able > to post their documents for comments? Then how productive and > cross-stakeholder would that be? Would stakeholders interact, or work to > improve their own documents? Plus, there are huge challenges to shynthetize > online contributions in a way that we "arrive at some point" and not just > at another compilation. How do we propose that organizers make a synthesis > of several documents being commented and evolving on different directions? > I think that online consultations are a great idea. We have seen how > effective they can be in our national examples. But I think they need to be > carefully conceived and thought-thorough. My feeling either is that we take > the time to think it through and propose something very clear and concrete > to the organizers, or they wont probably invest their resources on that. > But then, shouldn't we better focus on the actual dynamics of the meeting? > > Best, > Marília > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 31/01/14 12:40, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Thanks for this initiative, +1 from us. Please add the Internet >> Democracy Project to the signatories. >> >> The only small quibble I have is that the one reference to the IGF that >> is maintained (I read the conversation about this on the summit list) >> continues to read a little awkwardly. I've tried to reformulate it in a >> more positive way. Maybe an alternative for the first sentence of the >> second para could be the following? >> >> *As the Brazil meeting's organisers are free to experiment with such >> procedures, an important opportunity to achieve these objectives and to >> thus transcend the constraints of the IGF in particular, caused by its >> location within the UN system, now exists. * >> >> >> Thanks, that's very helpful and I've incorporated that amendment now. >> >> This statement is now online for endorsement. Please add yours at: >> >> http://bestbits.net/brazil-processes/ >> >> Thanks! >> >> (This is the second of three sign-on statements that go live today. >> Deborah will write about the third.) >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the >> global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Feb 4 12:31:40 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:31:40 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] note: ICCPR review on US Message-ID: Dear all, I just want to be sure we are all aware, but some of you may already know, that the US is going through its ICCPR review at the Human Rights Committee in March 2014. Note that this process began before the Snowden revelations began (way before!), but the list of issues that the US was asked to respond to did address NSA surveillance: The Committee asked the US to "provide information on steps taken to ensure judicial oversight over NSA surveillance of phone, email and fax communications both within and outside the State party." and more. NGOs who have not previously submitted comments can still do so now. The due date for submission is *February 14 *- see attached NGO note for more information about the process. Session information and previous submissions available here: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=625&Lang=en Is this a process Best Bits could/should work on? The submissions can be short, 2 pages for instance. Carol -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: INT_CCPR_INF_110_20837_E.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 164728 bytes Desc: not available URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Tue Feb 4 13:19:55 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 13:19:55 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] For sign on: Letter to co-facilitators of WSIS+10 negotiations Message-ID: Dear all, The letter to the co-facilitators of negotiations on the overall WSIS+10 review is now posted for sign on: http://bestbits.net/wsis10-modalities/ Thanks to all who sent feedback. I tried to incorporate all edits as much as possible. Please add your endorsement *by Monday, 10 February*. Kind regards, Deborah *Letter to co-facilitators calling for civil society input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities* February 4, 2014 H.E. Mr. Mohamed Khaled Khiari Permanent Mission of Tunisia to the United Nations 31 Beekman Place New York, N.Y. 10022 H.E. Mr. Jarmo Viinanen Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 222 New York, N.Y. 10017 Your Excellencies, We, the undersigned, are writing as members of civil society deeply engaged in Internet governance and ICT for development issues. Many of us have been engaged in this field since the inception of World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). At the outset, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as co-facilitators of the General Assembly's open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of WSIS. We feel strongly that all stages of the overall WSIS review process should be open to all interested stakeholders. As members of global civil society, we have been contributing to the WSIS review process that is currently underway and would welcome the opportunity to input into the informal consultations you are facilitating and serve as resources in these processes. The modalities for the overall review must embody the spirit of WSIS and take into account the progress and growing recognition of the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance that has been made since 2005, as exemplified by the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the WSIS High Level Event and the UNESCO WSIS+10 Review Event, but also the Internet Governance Forum, the Working Group on Internet Governance, the Working Group on IGF improvements, and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. We envision an overall WSIS review that renews and revives commitment to the Geneva principles' vision of a "people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society", is rooted in the international human rights framework, and builds on the achievements and addresses the challenges experienced in the 10 years since WSIS. Additionally, we would welcome efforts to find synergies and synchronicities between the overall WSIS review and the post-2015 development agenda, and in this context we would encourage the development of more concrete, measurable targets relating to ICTs and development. To conclude, we, the undersigned, consider it critical that the modalities of the overall WSIS review take into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and establish concrete mechanisms for civil society to channel its contributions, including through remote participation. Therefore, we, as members of global civil society, would like to request an opportunity to input into the informal consultations that you are facilitating and as well as to engage more formally in the preparatory process to the overall review. -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Feb 4 21:55:41 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:55:41 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Three sign-on statements now open for endorsement Message-ID: <52F1A82D.3030803@ciroap.org> There have been separate email threads about each of these statements, but I am collecting them together here. There are currently three sign-on statements developed by the Best Bits community that have just been opened for your endorsement. In no particular order these are: * Submission to IGF on themes and formats for the 2014 meeting http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/ (currently 2 endorsements) * Submission to Brazil meeting committees on deliberative processes for the Brazil meeting http://bestbits.net/brazil-processes/ (currently 3 endorsements) * Letter to co-facilitators calling for civil society input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities http://bestbits.net/wsis10-modalities/ (currently 6 endorsements) Please add your names if you would like to support these documents. Thanks! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Feb 4 22:58:40 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 01:58:40 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [NetMundial] Expression of interest form is On Message-ID: Dear all, I've just noticed that the form to express your interest in attending NetMundial is already online. For the ones willing to come, I would suggest to fulfill it: http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Feb 5 02:11:44 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:11:44 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: > My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for > on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during > the Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is > that the organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify > the best model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and > setting. If we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would > need to offer assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I > think it would be worthy. > > Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected > timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our > schedule) and which document (if any) should be the base of our > consultation. Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that > will be produced by the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. > Should the synthesis be the base of our online debate? In my view, > comments on a synthesis doc are likely to produce just another > syntheses. It is not clear at the present moment that we will have an > actual draft proposal on principles or frameworks prior to the meeting > and, if so, who should produce it. Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the basis for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to develop it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion it would be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent possible. This points to the need for an online deliberative process, actively facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The facilitation will be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm not understating the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected getting tangible outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Feb 5 02:45:59 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 05:45:59 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 to Jeremy. Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it without broader consultation); b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April (otherwise from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the Committees will just become a black box) c) probably a better proposal On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative process to build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest EC convene a working group with techies for that, they would have a month to organize it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco Civil is at W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always offer our help for brainstorming. And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my take is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is announced at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré (ITU) and the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the best duet for internet freedom/multistakeholderism). my two cents joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for > on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the > Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the > organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best > model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If > we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer > assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be > worthy. > > Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected > timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) > and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. > Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by > the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be > the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are > likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present > moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or > frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. > > > Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the basis for > discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to develop it, or > the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion it would be > better to give the community that opportunity to the extent possible. This > points to the need for an online deliberative process, actively facilitated > by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The facilitation will be hard > enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how to > present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm not understating the > difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected getting tangible > outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Wed Feb 5 04:15:59 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 09:15:59 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52F2014F.9000607@cdt.org> + 1 to Joana and Jeremy On 2/5/2014 7:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > > +1 to Jeremy. > > Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of > proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: > > a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the > participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve > it without broader consultation); > > b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April > (otherwise from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 > the Committees will just become a black box) > > c) probably a better proposal > > On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should > use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative > process to build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I > suggest EC convene a working group with techies for that, they would > have a month to organize it. Yasodara, who built the consultation > platform for Marco Civil is at W3C, within CGI.br, It's not > impossible. And we can always offer our help for brainstorming. > > And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my > take is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is > announced at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are > Touré (ITU) and the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, > not the best duet for internet freedom/multistakeholderism). > > my two cents > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing >> for on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate >> consensus during the Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online >> platform. My impression is that the organization of the meeting >> would lack experience to identify the best model of on-site >> deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If we want >> on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer >> assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it >> would be worthy. >> >> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the >> expected timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation >> fit our schedule) and which document (if any) should be the base >> of our consultation. Remember, for instance, that the synthesis >> paper that will be produced by the Secretariat will only be >> available on March 7. Should the synthesis be the base of our >> online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are >> likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the >> present moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on >> principles or frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who >> should produce it. > > Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the > basis for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will > have to develop it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; > and in my opinion it would be better to give the community that > opportunity to the extent possible. This points to the need for > an online deliberative process, actively facilitated by the > appropriate Brazil committee/s. The facilitation will be hard > enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how > to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm not > understating the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody > expected getting tangible outcomes from the Brazil meeting would > be easy... > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Sun Feb 2 09:52:38 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 14:52:38 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Thanks Marilia I’m back online now and picking up on my 430 e-mails so apologies to those who are waiting for a response from me. There are good reflections – my sense from them is that you have questions about a distributed governance model in that to may not be clear/purposeful enough to address the weaknesses in the current arrangements – is that a fair summary of what you’re saying? Or am I over interpreting? I think we shared your view that existing multi-stakeholderism has not provided corrections to imbalances of power – the real question is whether the move to a more state based system of governance would provide such a corrective or whether it would simply accelerate making the internet a geo-political battlefield (personally I suspect we are already there). In looking for a more dispersed governance model we were looking for a way of facilitating the input of a range of public interest views to counter the growing voices calling for state sovereignty over the internet. But I’d be the first to say that there are no perfect solutions in our current climate. I’ve given the 6th as the deadline for final comments and I’l try and process them after that and get back to people after that Andrew From: Marilia Maciel > Date: Wednesday, 22 January 2014 22:18 To: andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Hi Andrew and all, 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. 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. - 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. - 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... - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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 - 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. - 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. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Puddephatt > wrote: Hi everyone From: Marianne Franklin > Date: Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:57 To: andrew Puddephatt >, "parminder at itforchange.net" >, "" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear Andrew and all I’m heading offline for a week now and have had little substantive response to the document below. If there are any comments could you send them through to me by February 6th – after that we’ll consult about turning this into a submission in time for the deadline of March 1st. Andrew Puddephatt| GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project. The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at: · The case for reform · Possible criteria for reforming IG governance · An evaluation of the different proposals for reform · Preliminary conclusions. Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG system, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance. We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and risks here. It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from then list. To simplify things I suggest that people submit three categories of comments. 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put forward. I suggest that they develop their own approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom. 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which require further discussion. I will then collect these put together an online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion. 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation. We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented. And although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums. If you have other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me know. Andrew Puddephatt Internet Governance: proposals for reform ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and other relevant forums – Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations. In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of: 1. What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? 2. If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice? 3. How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these criteria – what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits. 4. What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach? The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion. 1) Case for reform Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: · There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. · There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language. · Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled. · The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. · Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. · There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest decisions. · There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the internet. · Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. · Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of “state sovereignty” on the global internet. · There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made – there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. · The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its international character and the benefits of free expression and access to information that it brings need to be preserved. · There is a unique property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination to make it effective. 2) Criteria for Internet Governance NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core set of principles. After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an essential element of any democratic international governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the internet – in order to avoid the pitfalls of “internet exceptionalism”. Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based participation can be important opportunities for bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing any proposed changes. The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena: a)Processes · Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; · Accountable: internal and external accountability process should exist, including a way of challenging decisions; · Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver · Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and developments in the field. b) Participation · Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many. · All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements · Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions · Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote. c) Underlying Values · Human rights values should be at the core of any governance process and outcomes. · Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global public good). 3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end of the document. UN Committee Model Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by governments. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body – identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific issues by rough consensus. Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet Democracy Project) This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue. Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project) Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s model appears to be more of a ‘proof of concept’ that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models outlined above. Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with oversight – potentially – of all public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few times per year. Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet community. There were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn’t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions – this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group. The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues are addressed. In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised approach in the UN Committee model – and to a lesser extent Jeremy’s MIPC model. A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach. 4) Existing Institutions The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance regime. IGF The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were identified: · Providing stronger leadership; · A better funded and supported secretariat; · Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; · Clearing house function; · More output-orientated; · Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels; · Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium businesses); · Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. ICANN In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege of the US which was seen as important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both location and structure. However, the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue. 5) Preliminary conclusions From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Feb 5 10:35:38 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:35:38 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: + 1 on Jeremy and Joana On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > > +1 to Jeremy. > > Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of > proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: > > a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the > participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it > without broader consultation); > > b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April (otherwise > from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the Committees > will just become a black box) > > c) probably a better proposal > > On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should use > as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative process to > build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest EC convene > a working group with techies for that, they would have a month to organize > it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco Civil is at > W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always offer our help > for brainstorming. > > And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my take is > that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is announced at > the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré (ITU) and the > Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the best duet for > internet freedom/multistakeholderism). > > my two cents > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for >> on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the >> Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the >> organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best >> model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If >> we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer >> assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be >> worthy. >> >> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected >> timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) >> and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. >> Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by >> the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be >> the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are >> likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present >> moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or >> frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. >> >> >> Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the basis >> for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to develop >> it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion it would >> be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent possible. >> This points to the need for an online deliberative process, actively >> facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The facilitation will >> be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how >> to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm not understating >> the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected getting tangible >> outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the >> global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Feb 5 14:19:23 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:19:23 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, The letter was already presented to EMC and cc to LOG by Adam. We will raise the topic on the next call and keep all informed about feedback on this proposal. The next call of the EMC is on Friday. Best, Marília On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > > +1 to Jeremy. > > Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of > proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: > > a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the > participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it > without broader consultation); > > b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April (otherwise > from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the Committees > will just become a black box) > > c) probably a better proposal > > On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should use > as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative process to > build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest EC convene > a working group with techies for that, they would have a month to organize > it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco Civil is at > W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always offer our help > for brainstorming. > > And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my take is > that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is announced at > the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré (ITU) and the > Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the best duet for > internet freedom/multistakeholderism). > > my two cents > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for >> on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the >> Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the >> organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best >> model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If >> we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer >> assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be >> worthy. >> >> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected >> timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) >> and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. >> Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by >> the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be >> the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are >> likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present >> moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or >> frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. >> >> >> Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the basis >> for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to develop >> it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion it would >> be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent possible. >> This points to the need for an online deliberative process, actively >> facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The facilitation will >> be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how >> to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm not understating >> the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected getting tangible >> outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the >> global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Feb 5 15:34:26 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:34:26 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, Talking to Joana we reached the conclusion that there may have been some misunderstanding regarding the meaning of a synthesis paper. The synthesis will be just a compilation of all proposals presented to the meeting. It will present all range of opinions about the two agenda items. It will be done by the Secretariat that gives support to the meeting (Mr. Daniel Fink's team). In the last EMC meeting we mentioned that, in addition to the synthesis document, maybe it would be interesting to have one draft text as input to the meeting. This draft text would be based on the synthesis document but would suggest one way forward for principles and for the discussion about frameworks. Of course, the participants of the meeting would be free to use this document, or discard it, or change it as they deem appropriate. The draft texts would be only a starting point. This was something that EMC mentioned, but no decision was made about it yet. So at this stage we are not certain if the synthesis (compilation) will led to other document or not. As far as I understood, Joana's suggestion was that we do have draft text and that this document is placed under consultation online. I agreed with that in first message. My point was that, considering that the synthesis will come out on March 7, we should think about the schedule and see if there is time to produce a draft text, place it under consultation and compile the suggestions from the consultation afterwards. Best! Marília On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > The letter was already presented to EMC and cc to LOG by Adam. We will > raise the topic on the next call and keep all informed about feedback on > this proposal. The next call of the EMC is on Friday. > > Best, > > Marília > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> >> +1 to Jeremy. >> >> Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of >> proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: >> >> a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the >> participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it >> without broader consultation); >> >> b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April (otherwise >> from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the Committees >> will just become a black box) >> >> c) probably a better proposal >> >> On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should >> use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative process to >> build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest EC convene >> a working group with techies for that, they would have a month to organize >> it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco Civil is at >> W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always offer our help >> for brainstorming. >> >> And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my take >> is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is announced >> at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré (ITU) and >> the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the best duet for >> internet freedom/multistakeholderism). >> >> my two cents >> >> joana >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for >>> on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the >>> Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the >>> organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best >>> model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If >>> we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer >>> assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be >>> worthy. >>> >>> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected >>> timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) >>> and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. >>> Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by >>> the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be >>> the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are >>> likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present >>> moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or >>> frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. >>> >>> >>> Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the basis >>> for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to develop >>> it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion it would >>> be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent possible. >>> This points to the need for an online deliberative process, actively >>> facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The facilitation will >>> be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how >>> to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm not understating >>> the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected getting tangible >>> outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the >>> global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >>> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Wed Feb 5 16:40:21 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 23:40:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <906lv16n23uep0hdvdoy2bbc.1391516194605@email.android.com> Message-ID: Thanks to Andrew and Article 19 for pulling together such a clear and helpful paper. I agree that it is useful to give substantive examples of goals that we want to see advanced through whatever system of governance is adopted. I think Andrew's list is a great place to start, especially if it resonates with outcomes from a previous Best Bits process (in Baku). It combines a clear stand on privacy with some of the big issues that were being debated pre-Snowden, particularly revenue capture (via net neutrality). I agree with Jeremy that freedom of expression and association should be there alongside privacy. A *brief* list is very good, but in the spirit of Gene's challenge: what about adding something about 'maintaining an open, distributed global network' (it's mentioned higher up in the document, should we also capture it as a goal?) and/or 'promoting diversity and meaningful competition in all layers of internet infrastructure, services and communications' (i.e. avoiding massive market concentration - I'm struggling to find a way to frame this positively). 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?! Cheers Anne On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > > 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. > > 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. > > > --Mike > > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM > To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > 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. ... > > The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku > best bits meeting > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Three examples might be: > > 1. Net neutrality > > 2. Protection for personal privacy > > 3. Affordable access > > 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. > > > > I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for > this in a two day conference > > > 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. > > 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. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > Click hereto report this email as spam. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Feb 5 18:15:22 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:15:22 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thank you Marilia and Joana for this clarification and +1 to Joana and Jeremy's points. I agree on using online tools to develop the draft but if the organizers determine that's not possible and a committee drafts it, then I would say the EC would be the better choice for the reasons Joana raised, and that online consultations should follow. Best, Deborah On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > Talking to Joana we reached the conclusion that there may have been some > misunderstanding regarding the meaning of a synthesis paper. The synthesis > will be just a compilation of all proposals presented to the meeting. It > will present all range of opinions about the two agenda items. It will be > done by the Secretariat that gives support to the meeting (Mr. Daniel > Fink's team). > > In the last EMC meeting we mentioned that, in addition to the synthesis > document, maybe it would be interesting to have one draft text as input to > the meeting. This draft text would be based on the synthesis document but > would suggest one way forward for principles and for the discussion about > frameworks. Of course, the participants of the meeting would be free to use > this document, or discard it, or change it as they deem appropriate. The > draft texts would be only a starting point. This was something that EMC > mentioned, but no decision was made about it yet. So at this stage we are > not certain if the synthesis (compilation) will led to other document or > not. As far as I understood, Joana's suggestion was that we do have draft > text and that this document is placed under consultation online. > > I agreed with that in first message. My point was that, considering that > the synthesis will come out on March 7, we should think about the schedule > and see if there is time to produce a draft text, place it under > consultation and compile the suggestions from the consultation afterwards. > > Best! > Marília > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> The letter was already presented to EMC and cc to LOG by Adam. We will >> raise the topic on the next call and keep all informed about feedback on >> this proposal. The next call of the EMC is on Friday. >> >> Best, >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> >>> +1 to Jeremy. >>> >>> Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of >>> proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: >>> >>> a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the >>> participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it >>> without broader consultation); >>> >>> b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April >>> (otherwise from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the >>> Committees will just become a black box) >>> >>> c) probably a better proposal >>> >>> On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should >>> use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative process to >>> build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest EC convene >>> a working group with techies for that, they would have a month to organize >>> it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco Civil is at >>> W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always offer our help >>> for brainstorming. >>> >>> And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my take >>> is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is announced >>> at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré (ITU) and >>> the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the best duet for >>> internet freedom/multistakeholderism). >>> >>> my two cents >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> >>>> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for >>>> on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the >>>> Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the >>>> organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best >>>> model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If >>>> we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer >>>> assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be >>>> worthy. >>>> >>>> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected >>>> timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) >>>> and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. >>>> Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by >>>> the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be >>>> the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are >>>> likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present >>>> moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or >>>> frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the basis >>>> for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to develop >>>> it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion it would >>>> be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent possible. >>>> This points to the need for an online deliberative process, actively >>>> facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The facilitation will >>>> be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how >>>> to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm not understating >>>> the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected getting tangible >>>> outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the >>>> global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>> Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >>>> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Feb 5 22:03:27 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:33:27 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 to Deborah. Marilia, just curious, when was the letter presented to the EMC then? And in whose name was it presented then? Thanks and best, Anja On 6 February 2014 04:45, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thank you Marilia and Joana for this clarification and +1 to Joana and > Jeremy's points. > > I agree on using online tools to develop the draft but if the organizers > determine that's not possible and a committee drafts it, then I would say > the EC would be the better choice for the reasons Joana raised, and that > online consultations should follow. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Talking to Joana we reached the conclusion that there may have been some >> misunderstanding regarding the meaning of a synthesis paper. The synthesis >> will be just a compilation of all proposals presented to the meeting. It >> will present all range of opinions about the two agenda items. It will be >> done by the Secretariat that gives support to the meeting (Mr. Daniel >> Fink's team). >> >> In the last EMC meeting we mentioned that, in addition to the synthesis >> document, maybe it would be interesting to have one draft text as input to >> the meeting. This draft text would be based on the synthesis document but >> would suggest one way forward for principles and for the discussion about >> frameworks. Of course, the participants of the meeting would be free to use >> this document, or discard it, or change it as they deem appropriate. The >> draft texts would be only a starting point. This was something that EMC >> mentioned, but no decision was made about it yet. So at this stage we are >> not certain if the synthesis (compilation) will led to other document or >> not. As far as I understood, Joana's suggestion was that we do have draft >> text and that this document is placed under consultation online. >> >> I agreed with that in first message. My point was that, considering that >> the synthesis will come out on March 7, we should think about the schedule >> and see if there is time to produce a draft text, place it under >> consultation and compile the suggestions from the consultation afterwards. >> >> Best! >> Marília >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The letter was already presented to EMC and cc to LOG by Adam. We will >>> raise the topic on the next call and keep all informed about feedback on >>> this proposal. The next call of the EMC is on Friday. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> +1 to Jeremy. >>>> >>>> Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of >>>> proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: >>>> >>>> a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the >>>> participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it >>>> without broader consultation); >>>> >>>> b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April >>>> (otherwise from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the >>>> Committees will just become a black box) >>>> >>>> c) probably a better proposal >>>> >>>> On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should >>>> use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative process to >>>> build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest EC convene >>>> a working group with techies for that, they would have a month to organize >>>> it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco Civil is at >>>> W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always offer our help >>>> for brainstorming. >>>> >>>> And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my take >>>> is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is announced >>>> at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré (ITU) and >>>> the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the best duet for >>>> internet freedom/multistakeholderism). >>>> >>>> my two cents >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for >>>>> on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the >>>>> Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the >>>>> organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best >>>>> model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If >>>>> we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer >>>>> assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be >>>>> worthy. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected >>>>> timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) >>>>> and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. >>>>> Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by >>>>> the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be >>>>> the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are >>>>> likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present >>>>> moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or >>>>> frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the basis >>>>> for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to develop >>>>> it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion it would >>>>> be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent possible. >>>>> This points to the need for an online deliberative process, actively >>>>> facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The facilitation will >>>>> be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how >>>>> to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm not understating >>>>> the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected getting tangible >>>>> outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the >>>>> global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>>> Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>> >>>>> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >>>>> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Marília Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Feb 5 22:26:12 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 01:26:12 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Anja, It was shared in the discussion list of EMC. I cannot find the message right now, but I think it was shared on behalf of Jeremy with the info that the document was still being signed by supporters from BB and it would be sent again afterwards with the signatures. Adam can confirm. Best, M On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > +1 to Deborah. > > Marilia, just curious, when was the letter presented to the EMC then? And > in whose name was it presented then? > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > On 6 February 2014 04:45, Deborah Brown wrote: > >> Thank you Marilia and Joana for this clarification and +1 to Joana and >> Jeremy's points. >> >> I agree on using online tools to develop the draft but if the organizers >> determine that's not possible and a committee drafts it, then I would say >> the EC would be the better choice for the reasons Joana raised, and that >> online consultations should follow. >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Talking to Joana we reached the conclusion that there may have been some >>> misunderstanding regarding the meaning of a synthesis paper. The synthesis >>> will be just a compilation of all proposals presented to the meeting. It >>> will present all range of opinions about the two agenda items. It will be >>> done by the Secretariat that gives support to the meeting (Mr. Daniel >>> Fink's team). >>> >>> In the last EMC meeting we mentioned that, in addition to the synthesis >>> document, maybe it would be interesting to have one draft text as input to >>> the meeting. This draft text would be based on the synthesis document but >>> would suggest one way forward for principles and for the discussion about >>> frameworks. Of course, the participants of the meeting would be free to use >>> this document, or discard it, or change it as they deem appropriate. The >>> draft texts would be only a starting point. This was something that EMC >>> mentioned, but no decision was made about it yet. So at this stage we are >>> not certain if the synthesis (compilation) will led to other document or >>> not. As far as I understood, Joana's suggestion was that we do have draft >>> text and that this document is placed under consultation online. >>> >>> I agreed with that in first message. My point was that, considering that >>> the synthesis will come out on March 7, we should think about the schedule >>> and see if there is time to produce a draft text, place it under >>> consultation and compile the suggestions from the consultation afterwards. >>> >>> Best! >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The letter was already presented to EMC and cc to LOG by Adam. We will >>>> raise the topic on the next call and keep all informed about feedback on >>>> this proposal. The next call of the EMC is on Friday. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Marília >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 to Jeremy. >>>>> >>>>> Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of >>>>> proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: >>>>> >>>>> a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the >>>>> participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it >>>>> without broader consultation); >>>>> >>>>> b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April >>>>> (otherwise from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the >>>>> Committees will just become a black box) >>>>> >>>>> c) probably a better proposal >>>>> >>>>> On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should >>>>> use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative process to >>>>> build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest EC convene >>>>> a working group with techies for that, they would have a month to organize >>>>> it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco Civil is at >>>>> W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always offer our help >>>>> for brainstorming. >>>>> >>>>> And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my >>>>> take is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is >>>>> announced at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré >>>>> (ITU) and the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the >>>>> best duet for internet freedom/multistakeholderism). >>>>> >>>>> my two cents >>>>> >>>>> joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for >>>>>> on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the >>>>>> Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the >>>>>> organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best >>>>>> model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If >>>>>> we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer >>>>>> assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be >>>>>> worthy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected >>>>>> timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) >>>>>> and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. >>>>>> Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by >>>>>> the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be >>>>>> the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are >>>>>> likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present >>>>>> moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or >>>>>> frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the >>>>>> basis for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to >>>>>> develop it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion >>>>>> it would be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent >>>>>> possible. This points to the need for an online deliberative process, >>>>>> actively facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The >>>>>> facilitation will be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of >>>>>> judgment as to how to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm >>>>>> not understating the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected >>>>>> getting tangible outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | >>>>>> the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>> >>>>>> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >>>>>> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >>>>>> >>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>> >>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Marília Maciel* >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>> >>>> Researcher and Coordinator >>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate >>>> www.diplomacy.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Marília Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Feb 5 22:37:01 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 01:37:01 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: As it was drafted in group, it would be good if the reference is always made to the link on BB: http://bestbits.net/brazil-processes/ also because it was open for signatures just a few days ago so people are still taking the time to sign it. I will circulate among other folks to see if you get more signatures until the meeting on Friday. If others can do it as well, please, go ahead. best joana On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Anja, > It was shared in the discussion list of EMC. I cannot find the message > right now, but I think it was shared on behalf of Jeremy with the info that > the document was still being signed by supporters from BB and it would be > sent again afterwards with the signatures. Adam can confirm. > Best, > M > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> +1 to Deborah. >> >> Marilia, just curious, when was the letter presented to the EMC then? And >> in whose name was it presented then? >> >> Thanks and best, >> Anja >> >> >> On 6 February 2014 04:45, Deborah Brown wrote: >> >>> Thank you Marilia and Joana for this clarification and +1 to Joana and >>> Jeremy's points. >>> >>> I agree on using online tools to develop the draft but if the organizers >>> determine that's not possible and a committee drafts it, then I would say >>> the EC would be the better choice for the reasons Joana raised, and that >>> online consultations should follow. >>> >>> Best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Talking to Joana we reached the conclusion that there may have been >>>> some misunderstanding regarding the meaning of a synthesis paper. The >>>> synthesis will be just a compilation of all proposals presented to the >>>> meeting. It will present all range of opinions about the two agenda items. >>>> It will be done by the Secretariat that gives support to the meeting (Mr. >>>> Daniel Fink's team). >>>> >>>> In the last EMC meeting we mentioned that, in addition to the synthesis >>>> document, maybe it would be interesting to have one draft text as input to >>>> the meeting. This draft text would be based on the synthesis document but >>>> would suggest one way forward for principles and for the discussion about >>>> frameworks. Of course, the participants of the meeting would be free to use >>>> this document, or discard it, or change it as they deem appropriate. The >>>> draft texts would be only a starting point. This was something that EMC >>>> mentioned, but no decision was made about it yet. So at this stage we are >>>> not certain if the synthesis (compilation) will led to other document or >>>> not. As far as I understood, Joana's suggestion was that we do have draft >>>> text and that this document is placed under consultation online. >>>> >>>> I agreed with that in first message. My point was that, considering >>>> that the synthesis will come out on March 7, we should think about the >>>> schedule and see if there is time to produce a draft text, place it under >>>> consultation and compile the suggestions from the consultation afterwards. >>>> >>>> Best! >>>> Marília >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marilia Maciel >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> The letter was already presented to EMC and cc to LOG by Adam. We will >>>>> raise the topic on the next call and keep all informed about feedback on >>>>> this proposal. The next call of the EMC is on Friday. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Marília >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 to Jeremy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of >>>>>> proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the >>>>>> participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it >>>>>> without broader consultation); >>>>>> >>>>>> b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April >>>>>> (otherwise from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the >>>>>> Committees will just become a black box) >>>>>> >>>>>> c) probably a better proposal >>>>>> >>>>>> On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we >>>>>> should use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative >>>>>> process to build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest >>>>>> EC convene a working group with techies for that, they would have a month >>>>>> to organize it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco >>>>>> Civil is at W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always >>>>>> offer our help for brainstorming. >>>>>> >>>>>> And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my >>>>>> take is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is >>>>>> announced at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré >>>>>> (ITU) and the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the >>>>>> best duet for internet freedom/multistakeholderism). >>>>>> >>>>>> my two cents >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing >>>>>>> for on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during >>>>>>> the Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that >>>>>>> the organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best >>>>>>> model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If >>>>>>> we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer >>>>>>> assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be >>>>>>> worthy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected >>>>>>> timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) >>>>>>> and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. >>>>>>> Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by >>>>>>> the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be >>>>>>> the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are >>>>>>> likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present >>>>>>> moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or >>>>>>> frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the >>>>>>> basis for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to >>>>>>> develop it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion >>>>>>> it would be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent >>>>>>> possible. This points to the need for an online deliberative process, >>>>>>> actively facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The >>>>>>> facilitation will be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of >>>>>>> judgment as to how to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm >>>>>>> not understating the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected >>>>>>> getting tangible outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | >>>>>>> the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >>>>>>> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Marília Maciel* >>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>>> >>>>> Researcher and Coordinator >>>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>> >>>>> DiploFoundation associate >>>>> www.diplomacy.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Marília Maciel* >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>> >>>> Researcher and Coordinator >>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate >>>> www.diplomacy.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> rightscon.org >>> >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Feb 5 22:53:07 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:23:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks for the clarification, Marilia. I agree with Joana that it is good to always make reference to the BB link, but also understand that time is short in this case, and that you wanted to bring this on the radar of the EMC as soon as possible. I'll share this with a few more people as well. Best, Anja On 6 February 2014 09:07, Joana Varon wrote: > As it was drafted in group, it would be good if the reference is always > made to the link on BB: http://bestbits.net/brazil-processes/ also > because it was open for signatures just a few days ago so people are still > taking the time to sign it. > > I will circulate among other folks to see if you get more signatures until > the meeting on Friday. > > If others can do it as well, please, go ahead. > > best > > joana > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Hi Anja, >> It was shared in the discussion list of EMC. I cannot find the message >> right now, but I think it was shared on behalf of Jeremy with the info that >> the document was still being signed by supporters from BB and it would be >> sent again afterwards with the signatures. Adam can confirm. >> Best, >> M >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> +1 to Deborah. >>> >>> Marilia, just curious, when was the letter presented to the EMC then? >>> And in whose name was it presented then? >>> >>> Thanks and best, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> On 6 February 2014 04:45, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Marilia and Joana for this clarification and +1 to Joana and >>>> Jeremy's points. >>>> >>>> I agree on using online tools to develop the draft but if the >>>> organizers determine that's not possible and a committee drafts it, then I >>>> would say the EC would be the better choice for the reasons Joana raised, >>>> and that online consultations should follow. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Marilia Maciel >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Talking to Joana we reached the conclusion that there may have been >>>>> some misunderstanding regarding the meaning of a synthesis paper. The >>>>> synthesis will be just a compilation of all proposals presented to the >>>>> meeting. It will present all range of opinions about the two agenda items. >>>>> It will be done by the Secretariat that gives support to the meeting (Mr. >>>>> Daniel Fink's team). >>>>> >>>>> In the last EMC meeting we mentioned that, in addition to the >>>>> synthesis document, maybe it would be interesting to have one draft text as >>>>> input to the meeting. This draft text would be based on the synthesis >>>>> document but would suggest one way forward for principles and for the >>>>> discussion about frameworks. Of course, the participants of the meeting >>>>> would be free to use this document, or discard it, or change it as they >>>>> deem appropriate. The draft texts would be only a starting point. This was >>>>> something that EMC mentioned, but no decision was made about it yet. So at >>>>> this stage we are not certain if the synthesis (compilation) will led to >>>>> other document or not. As far as I understood, Joana's suggestion was that >>>>> we do have draft text and that this document is placed under consultation >>>>> online. >>>>> >>>>> I agreed with that in first message. My point was that, considering >>>>> that the synthesis will come out on March 7, we should think about the >>>>> schedule and see if there is time to produce a draft text, place it under >>>>> consultation and compile the suggestions from the consultation afterwards. >>>>> >>>>> Best! >>>>> Marília >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marilia Maciel < >>>>> mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> The letter was already presented to EMC and cc to LOG by Adam. We >>>>>> will raise the topic on the next call and keep all informed about feedback >>>>>> on this proposal. The next call of the EMC is on Friday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Marília >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 to Jeremy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of >>>>>>> proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the >>>>>>> participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it >>>>>>> without broader consultation); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April >>>>>>> (otherwise from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the >>>>>>> Committees will just become a black box) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> c) probably a better proposal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we >>>>>>> should use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative >>>>>>> process to build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest >>>>>>> EC convene a working group with techies for that, they would have a month >>>>>>> to organize it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco >>>>>>> Civil is at W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always >>>>>>> offer our help for brainstorming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my >>>>>>> take is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is >>>>>>> announced at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré >>>>>>> (ITU) and the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the >>>>>>> best duet for internet freedom/multistakeholderism). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> my two cents >>>>>>> >>>>>>> joana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing >>>>>>>> for on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during >>>>>>>> the Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that >>>>>>>> the organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best >>>>>>>> model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If >>>>>>>> we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer >>>>>>>> assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be >>>>>>>> worthy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the >>>>>>>> expected timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our >>>>>>>> schedule) and which document (if any) should be the base of our >>>>>>>> consultation. Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be >>>>>>>> produced by the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the >>>>>>>> synthesis be the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a >>>>>>>> synthesis doc are likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear >>>>>>>> at the present moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on >>>>>>>> principles or frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should >>>>>>>> produce it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the >>>>>>>> basis for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to >>>>>>>> develop it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion >>>>>>>> it would be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent >>>>>>>> possible. This points to the need for an online deliberative process, >>>>>>>> actively facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The >>>>>>>> facilitation will be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of >>>>>>>> judgment as to how to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm >>>>>>>> not understating the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected >>>>>>>> getting tangible outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | >>>>>>>> the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >>>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia >>>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >>>>>>>> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>>>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Marília Maciel* >>>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>>>> >>>>>> Researcher and Coordinator >>>>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>>> >>>>>> DiploFoundation associate >>>>>> www.diplomacy.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Marília Maciel* >>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>>> >>>>> Researcher and Coordinator >>>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>> >>>>> DiploFoundation associate >>>>> www.diplomacy.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Senior Policy Analyst >>>> Access | accessnow.org >>>> rightscon.org >>>> >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Thu Feb 6 01:09:51 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:39:51 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] The greatest threat in the world today to peace.... Message-ID: <52F3272F.9080204@ITforChange.net> As the year 2013 drew to an end, the BBC reported on the results of the WIN/Gallup International poll on the question: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?” The United States was the champion by a substantial margin, winning three times the votes of second-place Pakistan. read more at http://inthesetimes.com/article/16227/the_greatest_threat_to_world_peace_is_the_united_states Some thing that the defenders of US exceptionalism / role in IG should reflect on. This dominant role in IG does feed into the global threat to world peace that the USG represents.. regards, Guru From Andrew at gp-digital.org Sun Feb 2 10:08:51 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 15:08:51 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Draft submission on 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: <374E46D2-17E1-41E9-9777-3281CF5AC644@ciroap.org> References: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> <374E46D2-17E1-41E9-9777-3281CF5AC644@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks for doing this Jeremy – is this something you want to submit to the new MAG? How can we put weight behind it? From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Tuesday, 28 January 2014 15:01 To: "" > Subject: [bestbits] Re: Draft submission on 2014 IGF On 19 Jan 2014, at 5:37 pm, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: I am offering this as the basis for a proposed joint submission to the IGF on proposals for the 2014 meeting. I will put it up on a pad for amendments, but I'm mailing it around for initial comments first. Thanks to Fouad, Tracy, Norbert, Matthew and Avri for valuable comments, both here and in the pad at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-2014. Endeavouring to incorporate these, here is a proposed revised version of the joint submission to the IGF on proposals for the 2014 meeting: The IGF has always struck a balance between continuity and incremental improvement in its themes and format. But overall, over nine years since the first meeting in 2006, whilst the names of themes and sessions formats have changed, there has been relatively little change in their substance. The IGF is still a discontinuous, face-to-face, four day meeting, composed of overlapping main sessions and workshops. For those who do not admit of gaps in current Internet governance arrangements or do not desire for those gaps to be filled by a natively multi-stakeholder institution, the IGF's resistance to change is neither a problem, nor a coincidence. But over the years as flaws in present arrangements have become apparent, the recognition of governance gaps has become more widespread and inspired more urgency for significant reform that would also better address developing country concerns. This has fuelled discussions outside of the IGF, such as the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, in which the possibility of a reformed IGF taking a more significant role in future Internet governance arrangements continues to come up. The IGF is challenged to respond to this call for more substantial reform to its processes, and there is no better time to do this than in preparation for its ninth meeting in Istanbul in September 2014, following on from the Brazil meeting, and heading towards its second review by the UN General Assembly. With an entirely new IGF MAG also in place for 2014, the opportunity exists for a fresh start, in which a number of unchallenged assumptions about how the IGF should operate can be critically examined again, and new ideas tried out. Yet none of the suggestions for reform given here are actually new. Several of them have been made every year since the IGF's formation in 2006, or earlier, but have never been adopted before now. The following are actionable immediately, without any need for change to the IGF's mandate: Themes * While maintaining its own independence, the IGF should find space within its agenda to discuss, and if appropriate affirm and commit to implementing the recommendations from the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. * In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are controversial and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too broadly framed like "openness" and "security" that are not grounded in any specific real-life context. * The national IGFs should feed issues into the regional IGFs which should in turn feed issues into the Global IGF so that the the issues at the global level in part reflect the concerns and challenges raised by the national and regional IGFs - a reporting in session by IGFs (as is currently the case) is inadequate. Session formats * To make the IGF more practically useful, designated workshops should be dedicated to developing non-binding opinions, recommending policy principles that stakeholders can follow to address pressing current issues. Workshop report formats should be standardised so that these recommendations, how they were arrived at, and any areas of divergence, can be easily communicated. * Whilst there will always remain room for parallel workshop tracks, workshops should be purposeful and focussed, with emphasis on the main themes selected for the meeting. Efforts should be made to eliminate low-quality, repetitive and redundant workshops. * Main sessions can and should also be used to develop outputs on the most important issues of cross-cutting importance. A number of Best Bits participants described one simple way in which such a session could work, in a statement issued on 20 May 2013 that is available at http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. Speed dialogues were another method considered by the MAG in the past, but never tried. Techniques used at the national and regional meetings should also be looked at. * To that end, main sessions and workshops should be separated. When these overlap each other, it becomes impossible for all interested IGF participants to join together to address important shared issues in an outcome-oriented, deliberative plenary session. This will also require a limit on the number of plenary meetings, to balance the time spent on plenaries and workshops. Online deliberation * The IGF should improve its capacity to sustain a work programme between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. * Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF meeting. Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the IGF, because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the face-to-face meetings. * Data from the IGF (including calendar data, publicly-available participant data, meeting transcripts, and working documents) should all be made available in open data formats. * It is vital that the development of the IGF's online platform be adequately resourced. Even so, it would only incur a small fraction of the expense of the annual meeting, and need not be elaborate: for example, in other Internet governance institutions, participants are encouraged to join mailing lists, whereas most IGF participants are never offered that opportunity. Whilst individual stakeholders have attempted to provide community-based platforms for the IGF in the past, these have not been supported or publicised by the Secretariat. They should be, and where appropriate could be adopted officially. Management structure * The Secretariat and the MAG conceived as a programme committee, are not sufficient high level structures for the IGF. In particular the reappointment of a Special Advisor as Chair is important to provide a charismatic public face for the IGF as well as a formal interface with the United Nations system and other high-level stakeholder representatives. A Special Advisor will also make it easier to attract funding for the event, and to provide leadership as the IGF undergoes necessary changes. * There is no warrant for the MAG to be limited to the role of a programme committee, as it is now. It is also important for a multi-stakeholder committee of the IGF to perform substantive tasks such as: * liaising with external bodies including national and regional IGFs (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(c)); * defining orphan issues and other areas in need of research, deliberation or recommendation; * preparing or approving balanced briefing materials on issues to be addressed by the IGF; * assessing the extent of consensus reached on proposed IGF outputs presented at a main session; * reviewing and ensure the accountability of all fora involved in Internet governance (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(i)); * establishing ad hoc working groups; and * preparing an annual report. * For some of these tasks, it may be that smaller working groups of the larger MAG could perform them more efficiently than the full MAG. For others, the more organisational tasks should be offloaded to the Secretariat, allowing the MAG to perform more of a steering and oversight role. * The MAG representatives should be appointed directly by the stakeholder groups without the intermediation of the UN Secretary General. Whilst the involvement of the UN was important to bootstrap the fledgling IGF, it can now stand on its own two feet and appoint its own representatives, through processes devolved to the stakeholder groups themselves. This should incorporate a formal rotational process, with some commonly agreed upon methods and criteria for stakeholder group appointments. Consultations should be held on the issue of whether the existing stakeholder groups recognised in the Tunis Agenda remain adequate today. Funding * A more flexible mechanism for funding the IGF is needed. The terms and conditions on which UN DESA accepts contributions to the IGF are unfavourable to donors, they lack transparency, and also limit the ability of participants to contribute small sums. There is no reason why a pool of funding separate to that administered by UN DESA could not be set up and administered transparently by a multi-stakeholder working group under the MAG's oversight. * Host country agreements should be made public, and host countries should be permitted to open tenders for non-security-essential services publicly, rather than being required to take these from UN DESA. If there are any further remarks please let me know, otherwise I'll put it up for endorsements on 1 February and we can submit it with those endorsements by 10 February. Thanks! -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Feb 6 01:43:09 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:13:09 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <906lv16n23uep0hdvdoy2bbc.1391516194605@email.android.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below: On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: /SNIP/ 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?! > 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: http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. 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. 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. Best, Anja ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilia Maciel Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Hi Andrew and all, 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. 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. - 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. - 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... - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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 - 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. - 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. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília > > Cheers > Anne > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> >> --Mike >> >> >> -- >> >> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >> >> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >> >> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >> >> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA >> >> >> >> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >> >> www.internews.org | @internews | >> facebook.com/internews >> >> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM >> To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >> >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG >> governance >> >> 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. ... >> >> The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the >> Baku best bits meeting >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG >> governance >> >> >> On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >> Three examples might be: >> >> 1. Net neutrality >> >> 2. Protection for personal privacy >> >> 3. Affordable access >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for >> this in a two day conference >> >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the >> global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | >> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> Click hereto report this email as spam. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > Chief Executive Officer > Cape Town, RSA > mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 > tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 > tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 > Skype anne.jellema > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | > www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 6 05:27:54 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:27:54 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <52F08D2E.2080606@ciroap.org> <52F1E430.6090209@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Anja, As sent to EMC list: > From Jeremy Malcolm for our consideration. For our committee and also Logistics. > > Recommendations on how discussion about themes might be organized and consensus identified using online tools. These will be submitted more formally after "bestbits" participants have had the opportunity to sign-on to the comment. > > Hartmut, could you forward this email to the logistics committee? > > Best, > > Adam Plus Jermemy's email, the link was in the text. Adam On Feb 6, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Thanks for the clarification, Marilia. > > I agree with Joana that it is good to always make reference to the BB link, but also understand that time is short in this case, and that you wanted to bring this on the radar of the EMC as soon as possible. > > I'll share this with a few more people as well. > > Best, > Anja > > > On 6 February 2014 09:07, Joana Varon wrote: > As it was drafted in group, it would be good if the reference is always made to the link on BB: http://bestbits.net/brazil-processes/ also because it was open for signatures just a few days ago so people are still taking the time to sign it. > > I will circulate among other folks to see if you get more signatures until the meeting on Friday. > > If others can do it as well, please, go ahead. > > best > > joana > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Anja, > It was shared in the discussion list of EMC. I cannot find the message right now, but I think it was shared on behalf of Jeremy with the info that the document was still being signed by supporters from BB and it would be sent again afterwards with the signatures. Adam can confirm. > Best, > M > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > +1 to Deborah. > > Marilia, just curious, when was the letter presented to the EMC then? And in whose name was it presented then? > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > On 6 February 2014 04:45, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thank you Marilia and Joana for this clarification and +1 to Joana and Jeremy's points. > > I agree on using online tools to develop the draft but if the organizers determine that's not possible and a committee drafts it, then I would say the EC would be the better choice for the reasons Joana raised, and that online consultations should follow. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > Talking to Joana we reached the conclusion that there may have been some misunderstanding regarding the meaning of a synthesis paper. The synthesis will be just a compilation of all proposals presented to the meeting. It will present all range of opinions about the two agenda items. It will be done by the Secretariat that gives support to the meeting (Mr. Daniel Fink's team). > > In the last EMC meeting we mentioned that, in addition to the synthesis document, maybe it would be interesting to have one draft text as input to the meeting. This draft text would be based on the synthesis document but would suggest one way forward for principles and for the discussion about frameworks. Of course, the participants of the meeting would be free to use this document, or discard it, or change it as they deem appropriate. The draft texts would be only a starting point. This was something that EMC mentioned, but no decision was made about it yet. So at this stage we are not certain if the synthesis (compilation) will led to other document or not. As far as I understood, Joana's suggestion was that we do have draft text and that this document is placed under consultation online. > > I agreed with that in first message. My point was that, considering that the synthesis will come out on March 7, we should think about the schedule and see if there is time to produce a draft text, place it under consultation and compile the suggestions from the consultation afterwards. > > Best! > Marília > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > The letter was already presented to EMC and cc to LOG by Adam. We will raise the topic on the next call and keep all informed about feedback on this proposal. The next call of the EMC is on Friday. > > Best, > > Marília > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > > +1 to Jeremy. > > Also, I really think a draft document (not just a compilation of proposals) will be needed prior the event, so it: > > a) will help transparency (meaning, it will be very bad if the participants get into a room for 2 days, draft something and approve it without broader consultation); > > b) will help consensus building from March to the end of April (otherwise from the submissions of proposals on March 1st to April 24 the Committees will just become a black box) > > c) probably a better proposal > > On the issue about who to draft it, I agree with Jeremy that we should use as much tools and channels needed for an online deliberative process to build it. If how to use this tool is still too broad. I suggest EC convene a working group with techies for that, they would have a month to organize it. Yasodara, who built the consultation platform for Marco Civil is at W3C, within CGI.br, It's not impossible. And we can always offer our help for brainstorming. > > And if any Committee need to facilitate and structure any text, my take is that people will be more comfortable if it's EC, just as it is announced at the first press release. As the chairs of HighLevel are Touré (ITU) and the Brazilian Minister of Communication$ (in my view, not the best duet for internet freedom/multistakeholderism). > > my two cents > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/02/14 22:02, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> My own feeling about it is that we should either focus on pushing for on-site deliberative mechanisms that would facilitate consensus during the Sao Paulo or on pushing for an online platform. My impression is that the organization of the meeting would lack experience to identify the best model of on-site deliberation for this particular meeting and setting. If we want on-site deliberative mechanisms in place, we would need to offer assistance with that, and this would consume us. But I think it would be worthy. >> >> Regarding the platform, it is not clear to me what is the expected timeframe for us (how to make a meaningful consultation fit our schedule) and which document (if any) should be the base of our consultation. Remember, for instance, that the synthesis paper that will be produced by the Secretariat will only be available on March 7. Should the synthesis be the base of our online debate? In my view, comments on a synthesis doc are likely to produce just another syntheses. It is not clear at the present moment that we will have an actual draft proposal on principles or frameworks prior to the meeting and, if so, who should produce it. > > Surely there will have to be a synthesis of contributions as the basis for discussions in Brazil, and either the community will have to develop it, or the Brazil committees will have to do so; and in my opinion it would be better to give the community that opportunity to the extent possible. This points to the need for an online deliberative process, actively facilitated by the appropriate Brazil committee/s. The facilitation will be hard enough work in itself, and involve a degree of judgment as to how to present the inputs in a useful and neutral way. I'm not understating the difficulty of the exercise, but surely nobody expected getting tangible outcomes from the Brazil meeting would be easy... > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Feb 6 10:10:32 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:10:32 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Participation of the US at NetMundial Message-ID: "In this spirit, the United States has accepted the invitation from the Embassy of the Federative Republic of Brazil to participate along with governments and other stakeholders in the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee... .... U.S. Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda will represent the United States at the meetings of the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee. Ambassador Sepulveda will collaborate closely with other U.S. officials including Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce and Christopher Painter, the Secretary of State's Coordinator for Cyber Issues." http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2014/221273.htm -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lea at gp-digital.org Thu Feb 6 11:36:58 2014 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 16:36:58 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] GPD publication on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: Dear all, In case of interest, GPD has just published a paper on enhanced cooperation co-authored by Anja Kovacs, Grace Githaiga and Joana Varon. You can access it here: http://www.gp-digital.org/publication/unlocking-enhanced-cooperation/ The authors discuss the current state of debate around enhanced cooperation and explore ways to formalise a model of internet governance that would allow the internet to continue developing as a conduit for innovation, free expression, and human rights. The latter part closely relates to current discussions about the ways to reform internet governance and could feed into potential Netmundial submissions. Hope you find it useful. Best, Lea Kaspar | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M +44 (0)7583 929 216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desiree at relax.co.uk Thu Feb 6 12:47:11 2014 From: desiree at relax.co.uk (Desiree) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:47:11 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] GPD publication on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Lea Thank you for sharing this! I would also like to draw attention people's attention to the OII's Enhanced Cooperation paper which can be downloaded from here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2376807 Kind regards Desiree Miloshevic -- On 6 Feb 2014, at 16:36, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > In case of interest, GPD has just published a paper on enhanced cooperation co-authored by Anja Kovacs, Grace Githaiga and Joana Varon. You can access it here: http://www.gp-digital.org/publication/unlocking-enhanced-cooperation/ > > The authors discuss the current state of debate around enhanced cooperation and explore ways to formalise a model of internet governance that would allow the internet to continue developing as a conduit for innovation, free expression, and human rights. The latter part closely relates to current discussions about the ways to reform internet governance and could feed into potential Netmundial submissions. Hope you find it useful. > > Best, > Lea Kaspar | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M +44 (0)7583 929 216 | Skype: l.kaspar > gp-digital.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Feb 6 13:15:30 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 13:15:30 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Participation of the US at NetMundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Eight other governments were announced as joining the HL Multistakeholder Committee as well: Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Indonesia, South Korea, Tunisia, and Turkey. Three more to be announced. More info here: http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/02/06/announcement-of-nine-countries-at-the-high-level-multistakeholder-committee/ On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > "In this spirit, the United States has accepted the invitation from the > Embassy of the Federative Republic of Brazil to participate along with > governments and other stakeholders in the High-Level Multi-stakeholder > Committee... > > .... U.S. Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda will represent the United States at > the meetings of the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee. Ambassador > Sepulveda will collaborate closely with other U.S. officials including > Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling from the National > Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of > Commerce and Christopher Painter, the Secretary of State's Coordinator for > Cyber Issues." > > http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2014/221273.htm > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 03:21:00 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:21:00 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] GPD publication on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C961730-27EE-4748-A1D2-CAEC91229AB8@gmail.com> Hi Congrats to both teams for the helpful contributions. Have you sent these to Peter to share with the WGEC? Best Bill On Feb 6, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Desiree wrote: > Dear Lea > > Thank you for sharing this! > > I would also like to draw attention people's attention to the OII's Enhanced Cooperation paper which can be downloaded from here: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2376807 > > Kind regards > Desiree Miloshevic > -- > > On 6 Feb 2014, at 16:36, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> In case of interest, GPD has just published a paper on enhanced cooperation co-authored by Anja Kovacs, Grace Githaiga and Joana Varon. You can access it here: http://www.gp-digital.org/publication/unlocking-enhanced-cooperation/ >> >> The authors discuss the current state of debate around enhanced cooperation and explore ways to formalise a model of internet governance that would allow the internet to continue developing as a conduit for innovation, free expression, and human rights. The latter part closely relates to current discussions about the ways to reform internet governance and could feed into potential Netmundial submissions. Hope you find it useful. >> >> Best, >> Lea Kaspar | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M +44 (0)7583 929 216 | Skype: l.kaspar >> gp-digital.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 08:33:28 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:33:28 -0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG Message-ID: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> 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 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. 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. 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. 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 whatever it takes 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. This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense. Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear all, I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below: On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: /SNIP/ 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?! 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: http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. 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. 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. Best, Anja ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilia Maciel Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Hi Andrew and all, 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. 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. - 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. - 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... - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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 - 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. - 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. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília Cheers Anne On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: 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. 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. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance 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. ... The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku best bits meeting -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Three examples might be: 1. Net neutrality 2. Protection for personal privacy 3. Affordable access 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. I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for this in a two day conference 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. 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. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. Click here to report this email as spam. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri Feb 7 09:05:53 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:05:53 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a discussion on that basis? If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the request to please reply.) Greetings, Norbert Michael Gurstein wrote: > 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… > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > whatever it takes 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. > > > > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common > sense. > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > To: Anne Jellema > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > Dear all, > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few > comments below: > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: > > /SNIP/ > > 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?! > > > > 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: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Best, > Anja > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Marilia Maciel > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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... > > > > - 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: > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > 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? > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > 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). > > 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? > > 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 > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and > hoping we can continue the discussions. > > Thanks again for the good start > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > —Mike > > > > > From genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 09:18:40 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:18:40 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> Message-ID: Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that this lens on IG process or principles has been lacking from the process so far. So maybe you can explain -- is it that you have a different theory of how CS can/should seek to become more powerful? A different approach to advocacy than what most activists/advocates have been practicing? I'm sure many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how to obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all the time.... On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for > the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take > these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict > with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. > > How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a > discussion on that basis? > > If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do > reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is > going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic > area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the > request to please reply.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > 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... > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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 > > whatever it takes 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. > > > > > > > > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common > > sense. > > > > > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs > > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > > To: Anne Jellema > > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; > > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > > governance > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few > > comments below: > > > > > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: > > > > /SNIP/ > > > > 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?! > > > > > > > > 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: > > > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised > > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Marilia Maciel > > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > > governance > > To: Andrew Puddephatt > > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > - 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... > > > > > > > > - 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: > > > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > > > 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? > > > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to > > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > > > 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). > > > > 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? > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and > > hoping we can continue the discussions. > > > > Thanks again for the good start > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 2 14:22:40 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 06:22:40 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] 2013 report from Best Bits interim steering commitee In-Reply-To: <3A744881-D801-4E9D-A3E3-389C9E8AAD57@ciroap.org> References: <947391B5-1965-42E6-914D-0241155331E4@ciroap.org> <52C69071.9070005@ciroap.org> <52D91C05.5020601@gold.ac.uk> <3A744881-D801-4E9D-A3E3-389C9E8AAD57@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Great report, Jeremy. Best Bits are to be congratulated for some excellent results at a time when civil society as represented in IGC was factionalised, divided, and non productive. It will be interesting to see what the future brings for both IGC and Best Bits, and how the inter-relationship pans out over time. In the mean time Best Bits is making an excellent current contribution which I hope continues. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 10:59 PM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] 2013 report from Best Bits interim steering commitee Please find attached a 2013 report from the Best Bits interim steering committee, in response to a good suggestion last November from Anriette Esterhuysen that this would improve transparency, and lay a path for renewal of the steering committee after the interim group had served one year. Even for those who did not have concerns about transparency, you will still find the report useful to read, because of the way that it maps the different workstreams that have been undertaken or proposed last year. It is very easy to get lost with different activities and conversations going on in different places, so we hope this helps to make things much clearer! If anyone has any questions about the report please feel free to ask. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please find attached a 2013 report from the Best Bits interim steering committee, in response to a good suggestion last November from Anriette Esterhuysen that this would improve transparency, and lay a path for renewal of the steering committee after the interim group had served one year. Even for those who did not have concerns about transparency, you will still find the report useful to read, because of the way that it maps the different workstreams that have been undertaken or proposed last year. It is very easy to get lost with different activities and conversations going on in different places, so we hope this helps to make things much clearer! If anyone has any questions about the report please feel free to ask. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 10:09:20 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:09:20 -0000 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> Message-ID: <015d01cf2416$9d04ed60$d70ec820$@gmail.com> Gene, Inline From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:19 PM To: Norbert Bollow Cc: IGC; Michael Gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in engaging with you on this. [MG>] good But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that this lens on IG process or principles has been lacking from the process so far. So maybe you can explain -- is it that you have a different theory of how CS can/should seek to become more powerful? [MG>] my point was not addressed to the relative status of CS, a subject on which I have, as you know quite divergent perspectives rather my point was concerning the recommendations that CS is making/advocating for Given my observations (and dare I say experience) with MSism in action, the ease (and cheapness) by means of which a MS process could be captured or subverted seems to me to be obvious and something that any responsible advocate for MSism would need to be very concerned about and ensure that the strongest of defensive measures were in place before any reliance was placed on these processes. And of course, similarly with other positions such as “decentralization” where again the possibilities of capture through the application of concentrated efforts and relatively minor financial resources would seem to me to be quite evident. A different approach to advocacy than what most activists/advocates have been practicing? [MG>] see above but not including concerns for defending outcomes from capture and subversion would seem to me to be naïve and foolhardy at the minimum I'm sure many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how to obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all the time.... [MG>] I must say I have seen little evidence of that perhaps you could point me in that direction. As a case in point, the ease with which a framework (1net) with no transparent or accountable provenance was able to inveigle itself into a position of centrality in various significant MS discussions/deliberations; the manner in which a “Summary” of the discussions was prepared again without any transparent or accountable provenance; and further the shift of the discussion from an open e-list to a registration only set of “forums”, the structuring of which again was done without any transparent or accountable provenance; and all with no pushback of any substance from “Civil Society” (including dare I say, exploration of matters such as who actually wrote the “summary” and who paid for this and the forum website); hardly gives confidence in the effectiveness or willingness to intervene of those who “ponder (this) all the time” including of course, the “Civil Society” notables that 1Net arranged to have selected for inclusion in its Steering Committee. But maybe I missed something. M On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a discussion on that basis? If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the request to please reply.) Greetings, Norbert Michael Gurstein wrote: > 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 > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > whatever it takes 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. > > > > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common > sense. > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > To: Anne Jellema > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > Dear all, > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few > comments below: > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: > > /SNIP/ > > 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?! > > > > 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: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Best, > Anja > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Marilia Maciel > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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... > > > > - 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: > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > 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? > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > 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). > > 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? > > 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 > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and > hoping we can continue the discussions. > > Thanks again for the good start > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > —Mike > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Feb 7 12:10:20 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:40:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG In-Reply-To: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Michael, Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent earlier, I felt compelled to respond directly. 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) "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" 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. 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). 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. All the best, Anja On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein wrote: > 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... > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 *whatever it > takes* 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. > > > > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common > sense. > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? > > > > M > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs > *Sent:* Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > *To:* Anne Jellema > *Cc:* Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > Dear all, > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments > below: > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: > > /SNIP/ > > 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?! > > > > 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: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Best, > Anja > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Marilia Maciel* > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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... > > > > - 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: > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > 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? > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > 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). > > 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? > > 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 > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we > can continue the discussions. > > Thanks again for the good start > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > > > *From: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" > *Reply-To: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" > *Date: *Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM > *To: *"jeremy at ciroap.org" , " > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > 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. ... > > > > The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku > best bits meeting > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Three examples might be: > > 1. Net neutrality > > 2. Protection for personal privacy > > 3. Affordable access > > 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. > > > > I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for > this in a two day conference > > > 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. > > 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. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > Click hereto report this email as spam. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > > Anne Jellema > > Chief Executive Officer > > Cape Town, RSA > mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 > > tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 > > tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 > > Skype anne.jellema > > @afjellema > > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | > www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Feb 7 12:16:51 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:46:51 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, Like Gene, I am always interested in engaging with new people/organisations on these issues, so do please count me in. Thanks, Anja On 7 February 2014 19:48, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to > promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in > engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that > this lens on IG process or principles has been lacking from the process so > far. So maybe you can explain -- is it that you have a different theory of > how CS can/should seek to become more powerful? A different approach to > advocacy than what most activists/advocates have been practicing? I'm sure > many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how to > obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all the > time.... > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for >> the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take >> these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict >> with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. >> >> How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a >> discussion on that basis? >> >> If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do >> reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is >> going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic >> area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the >> request to please reply.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >> > 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... >> > >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > whatever it takes 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common >> > sense. >> > >> > >> > >> > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? >> > >> > >> > >> > M >> > >> > >> > >> > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs >> > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM >> > To: Anne Jellema >> > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; >> > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG >> > governance >> > >> > >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few >> > comments below: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: >> > >> > /SNIP/ >> > >> > 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?! >> > >> > >> > >> > 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: >> > >> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised >> > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > Best, >> > Anja >> > >> > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Marilia Maciel >> > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 >> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG >> > governance >> > To: Andrew Puddephatt >> > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >> > >> > >> > Hi Andrew and all, >> > >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > - 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > - 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... >> > >> > >> > >> > - 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: >> > >> > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; >> > >> > 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? >> > >> > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to >> > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? >> > >> > 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). >> > >> > 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? >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > - 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > - 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and >> > hoping we can continue the discussions. >> > >> > Thanks again for the good start >> > >> > Marília >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > Anne >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > --Mike >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Fri Feb 7 12:28:32 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:28:32 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG In-Reply-To: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending? Best Anne On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein wrote: > 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... > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 *whatever it > takes* 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. > > > > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common > sense. > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? > > > > M > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs > *Sent:* Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > *To:* Anne Jellema > *Cc:* Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > Dear all, > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments > below: > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: > > /SNIP/ > > 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?! > > > > 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: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Best, > Anja > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Marilia Maciel* > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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... > > > > - 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: > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > 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? > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > 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). > > 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? > > 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 > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we > can continue the discussions. > > Thanks again for the good start > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 7 14:06:39 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 06:06:39 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> Message-ID: <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> Happy to discuss this too Norbert – as you know I wrote recently on list about the various hidden agendas that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to multistakeholderism). I think mapping these agendas and areas of self interest would be a good guide to strategy. Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this, but in any case happy to engage. From: Anja Kovacs Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:16 AM To: Gene Kimmelman Cc: Norbert Bollow ; IGC ; Michael Gurstein ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) Hi Norbert, Like Gene, I am always interested in engaging with new people/organisations on these issues, so do please count me in. Thanks, Anja On 7 February 2014 19:48, Gene Kimmelman wrote: Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested in engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed at the suggestion that this lens on IG process or principles has been lacking from the process so far. So maybe you can explain -- is it that you have a different theory of how CS can/should seek to become more powerful? A different approach to advocacy than what most activists/advocates have been practicing? I'm sure many on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how to obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that all the time.... On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly take these realities of particular interests (which are often in conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are interested in a discussion on that basis? If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but please do reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever discussion is going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this topic area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the request to please reply.) Greetings, Norbert Michael Gurstein wrote: > 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… > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > whatever it takes 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. > > > > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common > sense. > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > To: Anne Jellema > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > Dear all, > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few > comments below: > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: > > /SNIP/ > > 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?! > > > > 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: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Best, > Anja > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Marilia Maciel > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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... > > > > - 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: > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > 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? > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > 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). > > 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? > > 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 > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and > hoping we can continue the discussions. > > Thanks again for the good start > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > —Mike > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Fri Feb 7 15:12:12 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:12:12 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Questions for our submissions are now online at NetMundial Message-ID: http://content.netmundial.br/ -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 16:15:57 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:15:57 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Questions for our submissions are now online at NetMundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Please note that the page may still undergo minor adjustments. The members of EMC thought it was very important to open for contributions today, so all actors understand how the contributions will be and what will be expected from them. The final version of the page should be stable soon. Best Marília On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > http://content.netmundial.br/ > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Fri Feb 7 16:45:39 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:45:39 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52F55403.4010309@softwarefreedom.org> +1 On 02/07/2014 02:06 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Happy to discuss this too Norbert – as you know I wrote recently on > list about the various hidden agendas that can hide behind > multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to > multistakeholderism). I think mapping these agendas and areas of self > interest would be a good guide to strategy. > > Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this, but in any case > happy to engage. > > *From:* Anja Kovacs > *Sent:* Saturday, February 08, 2014 4:16 AM > *To:* Gene Kimmelman > *Cc:* Norbert Bollow ; IGC > ; Michael Gurstein > ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms > (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) > > Hi Norbert, > > Like Gene, I am always interested in engaging with new > people/organisations on these issues, so do please count me in. > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 7 February 2014 19:48, Gene Kimmelman > wrote: > > Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement > to promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very > interested in engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed > at the suggestion that this lens on IG process or principles has > been lacking from the process so far. So maybe you can explain -- > is it that you have a different theory of how CS can/should seek > to become more powerful? A different approach to advocacy than > what most activists/advocates have been practicing? I'm sure many > on the list haven't been thinking purely strategically about how > to obtain our goals, but I assume you that some of us ponder that > all the time.... > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for > the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly > take > these realities of particular interests (which are often in > conflict > with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. > > How many people here (besides Michael and myself) are > interested in a > discussion on that basis? > > If you're interested, please reply on-list or off-list, but > please do > reply, so that I can ensure to include you in whatever > discussion is > going to get organized. (I intend to pursue discussion of this > topic > area outside of the BestBits and the IGC mailing lists, hence the > request to please reply.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Michael Gurstein > wrote: > > > 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… > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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 > > whatever it takes 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. > > > > > > > > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is > simple common > > sense. > > > > > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been > telling us? > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] On Behalf Of > Anja Kovacs > > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > > To: Anne Jellema > > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG > ); genekimmelman at gmail.com > ; > > jeremy at ciroap.org ; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil > summit - IG > > governance > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few > > comments below: > > > > > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema > > wrote: > > > > /SNIP/ > > > > 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?! > > > > > > > > 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: > > > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised > > > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Marilia Maciel > > > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil > summit - IG > > governance > > To: Andrew Puddephatt > > > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > " > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > - 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... > > > > > > > > - 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: > > > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > > > 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? > > > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply > back to > > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > > > 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). > > > > 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? > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and > > hoping we can continue the discussions. > > > > Thanks again for the good start > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG ) > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > —Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Fri Feb 7 17:15:03 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:15:03 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Questions for our submissions are now online at NetMundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Marilia. Antonio Medina Gomez 2014-02-07 Marilia Maciel : > Dear all, Please note that the page may still undergo minor > adjustments. The members of EMC thought it was very important to open for > contributions today, so all actors understand how the contributions will be > and what will be expected from them. The final version of the page should > be stable soon. > > Best > Marília > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> http://content.netmundial.br/ >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Feb 7 17:33:31 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:33:31 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote: > that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to > multistakeholderism) Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my greater concerns. avri From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 2 14:51:59 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 06:51:59 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1E7EE738580744E8AF23179340FA7A2A@Toshiba> I wonder if there is another agenda we need to address here. The dominant models that exist in similar industries, and which I believe are the real battles going on in the world of internet governance, are between governmental control and industry self regulation (aka unregulated industry dominance.) I think we need to address this and make clear that industry self-regulation with no governmental controls at all is not an appropriate pattern for internet development. Only in this context do I think can we have a decent conversation about multistakeholderism. Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask to aid industry dominance with no governmental involvement whatsoever. And here the dominant industry players often find willing supporters in the technical community. I think civil society needs to be clear that, if it supports multistakeholderism, it is not giving support to no governmental involvement at all or to unregulated industry dominance. I think this is a real debate we have to have. And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all stakeholders have equal power in this – civil society arguments do not carry the weight of the large internet corporations, and to pretend that ms-ism somehow changes this imbalance is either naive or deliberately misleading. I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way the agenda is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles for governance, and this word multistakeholderism is going to be front and centre. I think we need to unwrap it a little and state clearly that the real issues going on are between governmental and industry control, neither of which of itself is of itself a satisfactory model. That’s just some thoughts which I wonder if we could include here. Elsewhere I think we need to have the larger debate about the mask of ms-ism, but I think also in this paper we should at least mention the battle between governmental control and industry control and how ms-ism is being used as a diversion and cover-up for a more substantial issue. Ian Peter From: Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 1:52 AM To: Marilia Maciel Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Thanks Marilia I’m back online now and picking up on my 430 e-mails so apologies to those who are waiting for a response from me. There are good reflections – my sense from them is that you have questions about a distributed governance model in that to may not be clear/purposeful enough to address the weaknesses in the current arrangements – is that a fair summary of what you’re saying? Or am I over interpreting? I think we shared your view that existing multi-stakeholderism has not provided corrections to imbalances of power – the real question is whether the move to a more state based system of governance would provide such a corrective or whether it would simply accelerate making the internet a geo-political battlefield (personally I suspect we are already there). In looking for a more dispersed governance model we were looking for a way of facilitating the input of a range of public interest views to counter the growing voices calling for state sovereignty over the internet. But I’d be the first to say that there are no perfect solutions in our current climate. I’ve given the 6th as the deadline for final comments and I’l try and process them after that and get back to people after that Andrew From: Marilia Maciel Date: Wednesday, 22 January 2014 22:18 To: andrew Puddephatt Cc: "" Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Hi Andrew and all, 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. 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. - 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. - 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... - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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 - 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. - 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. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Hi everyone From: Marianne Franklin Date: Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:57 To: andrew Puddephatt , "parminder at itforchange.net" , "" Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear Andrew and all I’m heading offline for a week now and have had little substantive response to the document below. If there are any comments could you send them through to me by February 6th – after that we’ll consult about turning this into a submission in time for the deadline of March 1st. Andrew Puddephatt| GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project. The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at: · The case for reform · Possible criteria for reforming IG governance · An evaluation of the different proposals for reform · Preliminary conclusions. Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG system, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance. We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and risks here. It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from then list. To simplify things I suggest that people submit three categories of comments. 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put forward. I suggest that they develop their own approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom. 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which require further discussion. I will then collect these put together an online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion. 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation. We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented. And although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums. If you have other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me know. Andrew Puddephatt Internet Governance: proposals for reform ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and other relevant forums – Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations. In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of: 1. What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? 2. If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice? 3. How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these criteria – what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits. 4. What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach? The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion. 1) Case for reform Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: · There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. · There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language. · Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled. · The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. · Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. · There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest decisions. · There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the internet. · Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. · Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of “state sovereignty” on the global internet. · There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made – there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. · The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its international character and the benefits of free expression and access to information that it brings need to be preserved. · There is a unique property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination to make it effective. 2) Criteria for Internet Governance NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core set of principles. After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an essential element of any democratic international governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the internet – in order to avoid the pitfalls of “internet exceptionalism”. Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based participation can be important opportunities for bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing any proposed changes. The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena: a)Processes · Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; · Accountable: internal and external accountability process should exist, including a way of challenging decisions; · Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver · Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and developments in the field. b) Participation · Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many. · All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements · Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions · Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote. c) Underlying Values · Human rights values should be at the core of any governance process and outcomes. · Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global public good). 3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end of the document. UN Committee Model Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by governments. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body – identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific issues by rough consensus. Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet Democracy Project) This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue. Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project) Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s model appears to be more of a ‘proof of concept’ that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models outlined above. Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with oversight – potentially – of all public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few times per year. Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet community. There were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn’t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions – this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group. The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues are addressed. In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised approach in the UN Committee model – and to a lesser extent Jeremy’s MIPC model. A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach. 4) Existing Institutions The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance regime. IGF The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were identified: · Providing stronger leadership; · A better funded and supported secretariat; · Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; · Clearing house function; · More output-orientated; · Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels; · Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium businesses); · Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. ICANN In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege of the US which was seen as important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both location and structure. However, the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue. 5) Preliminary conclusions From the response to the survey and by analysing various alternative models using the criteria set out above, there seems to be potential to come to a rough consensus combining a number of ideas commanding broad support among civil society. Dispersed vs. centralised A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigate but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate capture and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage on specific issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance. Broad participation & role of reformed IGF Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an important space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related public policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stronger leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the IGF and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to national and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation and reforming the MAG. A new co-ordinating function There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating function to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related policy making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new coordinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the form, location and processes by which that function is exercised. Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad agreement that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn’t a decision yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by different institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied to CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there was broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by consensus with the option to shift to another process where necessary and appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). New internet policy issues should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups which are issue specific.More discussion is needed about the form, location and processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups. ICANN reform A reformed ICANN – details to be worked on further. 6) List of Sources http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx Andrew Puddephatt| GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 00:11:40 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 05:11:40 -0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <028601cf248c$4254aa60$c6fdff20$@gmail.com> Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process. By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available. Someone asked for a practical/detailed example (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example . 1. Where did 1Net come from? Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.) 2. When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these? Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions? What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions. 3. Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net. Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself. 4. Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. . Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability. Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.) So why does this matter? Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted. And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website ) and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums. This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?). I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made. I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available? If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes. In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused. Mike From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending? Best Anne On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein wrote: 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 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. 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. 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. 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 whatever it takes 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. This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense. Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear all, I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below: On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: /SNIP/ 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?! 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: http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. 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. 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. Best, Anja ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilia Maciel Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Hi Andrew and all, 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. 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. - 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. - 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... - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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 - 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. - 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. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília Cheers Anne On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: 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. 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. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 00:31:34 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 05:31:34 -0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com> Anja, 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). M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:10 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG Hi Michael, Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent earlier, I felt compelled to respond directly. 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) "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" 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. 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). 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. All the best, Anja On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein wrote: 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 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. 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. 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. 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 whatever it takes 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. This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense. Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear all, I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below: On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: /SNIP/ 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?! 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: http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. 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. 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. Best, Anja ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilia Maciel Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Hi Andrew and all, 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. 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. - 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. - 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... - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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 - 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. - 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. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília Cheers Anne On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: 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. 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. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance 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. ... The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku best bits meeting -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Three examples might be: 1. Net neutrality 2. Protection for personal privacy 3. Affordable access 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. I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for this in a two day conference 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. 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. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. Click here to report this email as spam. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 00:31:34 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 05:31:34 -0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <029f01cf248f$2c288510$84798f30$@gmail.com> Sala, I’m not sure my comments would fit into the MAG process My feeling is that the MAG/IGF process is meant to divert discussion away from significant issues/outcomes. If my comments were to be addressed to the MAG/IGF it would be to ask for full transparency and accountability for those processes and parties which so strenuously insist on the IGF as the premier framework for Internet Governance and thus direct attention away from the discussion of frameworks and mechanisms that might address the issues I consider to be significant as for example those raised in the Community Informatics Declaration Best, M. From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 8:40 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Anja Kovacs; Anne Jellema; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG Hi Mike, I note your message and the issues you raised. If you were to summarise your message into themes to channel into the MAG Open Consultation, what descriptive headers would they be? Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:33 AM, michael gurstein wrote: 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 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. 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. 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. 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 whatever it takes 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. This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense. Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear all, I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below: On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: /SNIP/ 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?! 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: http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. 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. 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. Best, Anja ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilia Maciel Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Hi Andrew and all, 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. 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. - 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. - 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... - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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 - 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. - 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. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília Cheers Anne On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: 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. 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. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance 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. ... The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku best bits meeting -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Three examples might be: 1. Net neutrality 2. Protection for personal privacy 3. Affordable access 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. I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for this in a two day conference 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. 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. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. Click here to report this email as spam. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 01:40:33 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 06:40:33 -0000 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> Message-ID: <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow being "opposition" to those processes. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote: > that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to > multistakeholderism) Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my greater concerns. avri From avri at acm.org Sat Feb 8 12:51:19 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:51:19 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [] Speaking of accountability In-Reply-To: <52F640E6.5050004@acm.org> References: <52F640E6.5050004@acm.org> Message-ID: <52F66E97.3040002@acm.org> Not quite multi list cc'ing, but wanted to get the message to several lists because the overlap in subscription is not 100%. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] Speaking of accountability Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:36:22 -0500 From: Avri Doria Hi, The ICANN AOC based Accountability and Transparency Review Team's report from 2013 been published in the UN 6 languages. These just came out in the last weeks. http://www.icann.org/zh/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-zh.htm And coincidentally the comment period before board response to the ATRT report is still open Comment Close Date: 21 February 2014 - 23:59 UTC Reply Close Date: 15 March 2014 - 23:59 UTC Replies are comments too. They are just supposed to be comments about comments, i.e. responses. avri Personal note: when I first got involved with ICANN in 2005, I never could have imagined sending such a message as this. ICANN has come quite a ways. Sometimes lots of people chipping away day after day, year after year does make a difference. And yes, there is still a long long way to go. From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 22:58:22 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:58:22 -0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Message-ID: <01a201cf254b$2fd978b0$8f8c6a10$@gmail.com> Colleagues, As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following: Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call? Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call. Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM To: 'Anne Jellema' Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org) Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process. By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available. Someone asked for a practical/detailed example (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example . 1. Where did 1Net come from? Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.) 2. When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these? Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions? What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions. 3. Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net. Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself. 4. Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. . Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability. Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.) So why does this matter? Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted. And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website ) and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums. This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?). I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made. I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available? If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes. In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused. Mike From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending? Best Anne On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein wrote: 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 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. 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. 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. 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 whatever it takes 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. This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense. Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear all, I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments below: On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: /SNIP/ 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?! 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: http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). 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. 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. 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. Best, Anja ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilia Maciel Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Hi Andrew and all, 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. 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. - 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. - 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... - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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 - 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. - 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. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília Cheers Anne On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: 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. 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. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 23:18:13 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:18:13 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Message-ID: With all due respect,  making 1net the focus of concern strikes me as a distraction from more important substantive issues. We need the Brazil conference ( not 1net) to be inclusive,  open and address civil society priorities.  -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 02/08/2014 10:58 PM (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Colleagues,   As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following:   Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call?   Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call.   Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails.   M   From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM To: 'Anne Jellema' Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org) Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG   Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others…   My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process.   By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting  of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available.   Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format…   Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example….   1.       Where did 1Net come from?  Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.)   2.       When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these?  Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions?  What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions.   3.       Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net.  Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself.   4.       Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. .  Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating?   (Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability.  Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.)   So why does this matter?   Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted.  And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website)   and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others.   1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums.   This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?).    I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made.   I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available?  If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes.   In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused.   Mike     From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG   A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending? Best Anne On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein wrote: 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…   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.    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.   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.   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 whatever it takes 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.   This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing.  This is simple common sense.   Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us?   M   From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Feb 8 23:37:46 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 04:37:46 -0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01c801cf2550$b0082950$10187bf0$@gmail.com> But with all due respect, 1Net has been accorded and accorded itself a central role in framing the ”multistakeholder” inputs and discussions into Brazil and thus very much warrants the need for full transparency. I see no reason why my rather simple and straightforward questions couldn’t be answered with one fairly lengthy email (perhaps one hour’s work), unless of course, (wearing my auditor’s hat) there is something that those who could be providing the requested information don’t want us to know. What greater priorities could civil society have than transparency and accountability? M From: genekimmelman at gmail.com [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 4:18 AM To: gurstein at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net With all due respect, making 1net the focus of concern strikes me as a distraction from more important substantive issues. We need the Brazil conference ( not 1net) to be inclusive, open and address civil society priorities. -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 02/08/2014 10:58 PM (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Colleagues, As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following: Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call? Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call. Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM To: 'Anne Jellema' Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org) Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others… My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process. By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available. Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format… Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example…. 1. Where did 1Net come from? Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.) 2. When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these? Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions? What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions. 3. Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net. Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself. 4. Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. . Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability. Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.) So why does this matter? Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted. And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website ) and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums. This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?). I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made. I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available? If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes. In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused. Mike From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending? Best Anne On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein wrote: 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… 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. 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. 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. 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 whatever it takes 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. This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense. Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 9 01:02:54 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:32:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic.. Hope civil society groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, and history questions its role in subverting democracy. parminder On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow being "opposition" to those processes. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) > > > > On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote: > >> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to >> multistakeholderism) > > Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my greater concerns. > > avri > > From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 9 02:26:22 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:26:22 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real and present danger. But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we call democracy? In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties. The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse in some other countries. And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable arrangements between these corruptible nation states either. The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating as regards nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business interests from crowding the public out of the tent ". I couldn't agree more. For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any form of governance, highly corruptible . The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)". It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a central design element. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: parminder Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic.. Hope civil society groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, and history questions its role in subverting democracy. parminder On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full accountability > and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who equate an > insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow being > "opposition" to those processes. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was > Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) > > > > On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote: > >> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to >> multistakeholderism) > > Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my greater > concerns. > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From brett at accessnow.org Sun Feb 2 14:57:06 2014 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 14:57:06 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> <17BA5458-7AC6-4CED-8F85-DF152167325A@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hey, Just to follow up to Carolina's earlier email, in the meeting last week we underscored the need for human rights principles to form the foundation for the NetMundial discussion. Essentially, I made the point, that if one of the goals of the meeting is to produce a set of global principles for internet governance, the principles must be rooted in the international human rights framework and be accepted/endorsed by the global users they're meant to benefit. In doing so, I referred to the Human Rights Council resolution 20/8 on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet (which I have since sent through to Chris and Fadi). We also pointed out that there a number of sets of principles out there already as Adam notes, so we should be careful not to unnecessarily reinvent the wheel. I made particular reference to the Internet Rights and Principles Charter which Carolina has also sent through as part of a package that compares the different sets of principles out there. She included a link to Necessary and Proportionate. For what its worth there seemed to be a lot of support for the human rights framework in the room, including from Fadi who asked that this be followed up on, saying that human right should 'anchor' the discussion and feed into the strategy panel deliberations. I am not sure however what is the best way to reach consensus ahead of or during the Brazil discussion, but certainly Carolina's principles mapping docs are helpful to demonstrate the synergies and differences amongst the existing sets. As I understand it they have employed a VP for Public Responsibility, Nora Abusitta. It might be good to get a better sense of her role at ICANN, as Fadi mentioned her both at the at that meeting and the State of Net conference the day before in DC. Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A *RightsCon Silicon Valley, March 3-5, 2014. Register interest now !* On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:50 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > What do you mean? The website netmundial.org is open for suggestions. > > > > > > > I would hold off sending anything to the website until there is a call for > contributions. This should come very soon. > > Reason I'm asking about the key principles statements is to get some idea > about how we might plan for discussion in Sao Paulo, how to achieve the > best outcome (whatever that might be - and that itself a good topic to > discuss.) > > The agenda allows for about 4 hours of discussion, so my personal hope is > we'll be able to start the meeting with some consensus on core principles > that might form the basis of a universal statement -- with the universal > statement, or a draft of it, an outcome of this part of the meeting. > > We've heard a few times that there are perhaps 25 key statements of > principles. So, based on those how can we reach a rough consensus on which > are the core/common/essential principles for a universal statement? One > way might be to ask people to consider the key (25?) statements and from > those identify which they think are the core principles, and ask for some > justification for their selections. Might narrow down to a common set > which can be further discussed. But to do this, do need to identify the > key statements (hence my email below.) > > I don't know if the exec comm will agree this is a reasonable approach, or > if CS will. But interested to hear. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Carolina, > > > > Could you recommend the key principles statements we might consider. > > > > Jeremy drew up a list: < > http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/statements-of-internet-rights-and-principles/ > > > > > > Add President Rousseff's speech to the UN GA < > http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/BR_en.pdf> and > also the UN "right to privacy in the digital age" (based on the > Brazil+German draft, copy attached). > > > > Necessary and proportionate < > https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text> and Carl Bildt's Seoul > cyber conf speech , both > spoken highly of in Bali. > > > > Marco Civil should be consider if it passes and if Brazil wants it > there. Community informatics statement < > http://cirn.wikispaces.com/An+Internet+for+the+Common+Good+-+Engagement%2C+Empowerment%2C+and+Justice+for+All> > (though I think a bit aspirational). > > > > Is that it, what am I missing? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:02 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > > > - He did not mentioned specific dates for the reports, but he said > they are almost done. > > > - I did understand that when he was saying "governance principles" > they would be process focus principles. So transparency, multistakeholder, > etc would be discussed, but net neutrality and things alike would not (But > remember, Fadi impressions have diverged in the past from those of the > Brazilian officials). Maybe this is something that should be clarified by > the committees. At the end the statement "crafting internet principles" is > not that clear (to say the least) > > > - yes, he did agree HR should be the broader framework for all this > > > - I was in a meeting yesterday with folks of the Necessary and > Proportionate coalition, and I specifically suggested Katitza (EFF), Jochai > (Access) and Mathew (CDT) to submit through the site the N and P > principles... > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > > Thanks, Carol. > > > This part brought my attention: > > > > > > "Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of > governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days." > > > > > > + > > > The addition you guys made on Human Rights and he agreed. > > > > > > I wonder what is the understanding...is it that there wouldnt be space > to debate specific principles such as necessary and proportionate? > > > > > > Do we have a date for Vint's report? > > > > > > > > > On 29 Jan 2014 13:56, "Carolina Rossini" > wrote: > > > Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this group of > social responsability figures out their next steps, but we can clarify > > > > > > Chirs is also moving to DC. > > > > > > No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They just called > folks from civil society and think tanks in DC to meet, since Fadi was here > to speak at STON > > > > > > C. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 9 02:49:34 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:49:34 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agree with Gene. 1net is an experiment we can abandon at any time if it does not become productive. So no I do not support the sort of statement suggested below. Which is not to rule out a consensus document of some sort in the future addressing accountability and transparency issues. From: genekimmelman at gmail.com Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 3:18 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net With all due respect, making 1net the focus of concern strikes me as a distraction from more important substantive issues. We need the Brazil conference ( not 1net) to be inclusive, open and address civil society priorities. -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 02/08/2014 10:58 PM (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Colleagues, As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following: Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call? Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call. Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM To: 'Anne Jellema' Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org) Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others… My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process. By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available. Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format… Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example…. 1. Where did 1Net come from? Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.) 2. When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these? Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions? What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions. 3. Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net. Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself. 4. Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. . Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability. Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.) So why does this matter? Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted. And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website) and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums. This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?). I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made. I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available? If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes. In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused. Mike From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending? Best Anne On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein wrote: 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… 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. 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. 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. 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 whatever it takes 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. This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense. Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 9 03:06:07 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:36:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net> On Sunday 09 February 2014 12:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of > multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real > and present danger. > > But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we > call democracy? Ian This is a highly dangerous statement to make... What we know as democracy and call democracy is for us - the people - to claim.. Not to call names, and throw away. And people have risen and often claimed it, as even some recent events have shown, and more will come, with the Internet no doubt playing a big role... To speak so loosely about democracy - that it is the 'this bad system' or that, is as I said dangerous, and basically giving the priceless human heritage of democracy away. We have to be very careful to be talking about things that are so high and valued as democracy. So, I really do not understand what you mean to say about 'same danger'... You cannot rise and claim corporatist MSism as you can claim democracy. Is it a small difference. Recently, a group, less than a year old, which was protesting corruption on the roads, and being openly ridiculed as useless and powerless, took control of the government of New Delhi by wining elections. This was done entirely through crowd sourced money and volunteers. Can you think of a similar process for taking over Davos! But, if you are talking about just the global level democracy or the absence of it, yes , lets talk about it. I am ready for the most drastic proposal, as long as it does not involve giving privileged positions to the already extra-ordinarily powerful global corporations. Ian, I really mean it. Lets discuss global democracy. That is the discussion to have. But before that let us issue a clear statement that we are against what is happening in the name of MSism, which is really WEF-ism or Davos-ism. That we are against giving any special political privilege to global corporates. That we strongly condemn and disassociate from all those who openly say (including on these lists) that google should vote at the same level as a country government in global policy making. Lets get together and say all this... And then also say what is wrong with the UN and what we want changed. That is the discussion we need to have. BTW, whenever some people, Wolfgang for instance, have sought that G 20 - which includes India - takes up a special role in global IG, I have opposed it, This is where UN is more democratic than a Davos or G 20. Therefore our critiques and positions should be context specific and pragmatic, to push things in the right direction rather than the wrong direction. That is our political responsibility. Simply put, going for Davos kind of governance solutions - which, sorry to say, I think most IG civil society is abetting - is the 'wrong direction' to push. UN reform on the other hand is the 'right direction' to push. The choice, as actually presented, I see is between the two. And as responsible political actors we have to negotiate our way - however idealistic in its final form - through the given landscape where are situated at the moment, and taking stock of the forces that we can see and feel at work. If you or someone else has a third directions, clearly different from the two above, please mention that... I see MIlton's proposals, Jeremy's MIC proposal, some proposals from Joana's organisation, etc, all of which give corporates a voting role, really simply going in the direction that Davos-ists want things to go. They - the Davos-ists - know that it is tough to simply wipe out the few hundred years of history behind democracy, and the strength it therefore posses.. To them, these civil society proposals, where there is a lot of goodly-goody stuff, but the basic point is that corporates have policy votes, is just the thing to go for... Once there, they know how to make it entirely their show with some bones thrown occasionally here and there to those who need to be co-pted. A historic point like the present one requires a response that fits contextually, and nudge things in the right direction. Each of us has to convince ourselves whether our acts are contributing to the right direction or the wrong one.. And we have also to convince others and the world, as a group with privileged access to policy process, which we claim on behalf of the people of the world. parminder > In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media > telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long > history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to > corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent > outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties. > The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse > in some other countries. > > And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable > arrangements between these corruptible nation states either. > > The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating as regards > nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that > should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business > interests from crowding the public out of the tent ". > > I couldn't agree more. > > For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any > form of governance, highly corruptible . > > The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in > about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that > in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of > WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was > “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the > setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN)". > > It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was > retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a > central design element. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: parminder > Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms > (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) > > > please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about > > http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business > > The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic.. > > Hope civil society groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, > and history questions its role in subverting democracy. > > parminder > > > > On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full >> accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who >> equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow >> being "opposition" to those processes. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms >> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) >> >> >> >> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to >>> multistakeholderism) >> >> Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my >> greater concerns. >> >> avri >> >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 9 04:20:06 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:20:06 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I think we see the problem differently. To me the central problem here is the power of corporations to influence and dictate policy in their own interests. I have plenty of evidence that the nation state system we call democracy as universally practiced AND multistakeholderism are both highly susceptible to this power. So in this respect neither solves my basic problem. And at this level there is not much point in talking about what democracy should be or what multistakeholderism should be - both are susceptible to this problem and unable to deal with it. Tell me - if we abandon multistakeholderism, will the corporate dominance problem disappear? Of course not. And if you all get up in your country tomorrow and vote in another government, will the problem disappear? Of course not. I conclude that the real problem is not the systems of governance, but the power of corporations to overpower representative systems. The most effective counters I know are in the form of social activism and advocacy. In that respect, the most powerful thing civil society can do is to speak and act forcefully with one voice against the major problems we face. And in the Internet governance area, corporate dominance is very high on my list. Along with unilateral governmental dominance in some areas. I think we divert our energies if we attack multistakeholderism instead of corporate dominance. But equally, I think we must clearly point out the dangers of corporate dominance in a multistakeholder system. Ian -----Original Message----- From: parminder Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 7:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) On Sunday 09 February 2014 12:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > That's a great article, Parminder, and points to the dangers of > multistakeholderism being taken over by corporate interests. A real > and present danger. > > But doesn't the same danger exist within the nation state system we > call democracy? Ian This is a highly dangerous statement to make... What we know as democracy and call democracy is for us - the people - to claim.. Not to call names, and throw away. And people have risen and often claimed it, as even some recent events have shown, and more will come, with the Internet no doubt playing a big role... To speak so loosely about democracy - that it is the 'this bad system' or that, is as I said dangerous, and basically giving the priceless human heritage of democracy away. We have to be very careful to be talking about things that are so high and valued as democracy. So, I really do not understand what you mean to say about 'same danger'... You cannot rise and claim corporatist MSism as you can claim democracy. Is it a small difference. Recently, a group, less than a year old, which was protesting corruption on the roads, and being openly ridiculed as useless and powerless, took control of the government of New Delhi by wining elections. This was done entirely through crowd sourced money and volunteers. Can you think of a similar process for taking over Davos! But, if you are talking about just the global level democracy or the absence of it, yes , lets talk about it. I am ready for the most drastic proposal, as long as it does not involve giving privileged positions to the already extra-ordinarily powerful global corporations. Ian, I really mean it. Lets discuss global democracy. That is the discussion to have. But before that let us issue a clear statement that we are against what is happening in the name of MSism, which is really WEF-ism or Davos-ism. That we are against giving any special political privilege to global corporates. That we strongly condemn and disassociate from all those who openly say (including on these lists) that google should vote at the same level as a country government in global policy making. Lets get together and say all this... And then also say what is wrong with the UN and what we want changed. That is the discussion we need to have. BTW, whenever some people, Wolfgang for instance, have sought that G 20 - which includes India - takes up a special role in global IG, I have opposed it, This is where UN is more democratic than a Davos or G 20. Therefore our critiques and positions should be context specific and pragmatic, to push things in the right direction rather than the wrong direction. That is our political responsibility. Simply put, going for Davos kind of governance solutions - which, sorry to say, I think most IG civil society is abetting - is the 'wrong direction' to push. UN reform on the other hand is the 'right direction' to push. The choice, as actually presented, I see is between the two. And as responsible political actors we have to negotiate our way - however idealistic in its final form - through the given landscape where are situated at the moment, and taking stock of the forces that we can see and feel at work. If you or someone else has a third directions, clearly different from the two above, please mention that... I see MIlton's proposals, Jeremy's MIC proposal, some proposals from Joana's organisation, etc, all of which give corporates a voting role, really simply going in the direction that Davos-ists want things to go. They - the Davos-ists - know that it is tough to simply wipe out the few hundred years of history behind democracy, and the strength it therefore posses.. To them, these civil society proposals, where there is a lot of goodly-goody stuff, but the basic point is that corporates have policy votes, is just the thing to go for... Once there, they know how to make it entirely their show with some bones thrown occasionally here and there to those who need to be co-pted. A historic point like the present one requires a response that fits contextually, and nudge things in the right direction. Each of us has to convince ourselves whether our acts are contributing to the right direction or the wrong one.. And we have also to convince others and the world, as a group with privileged access to policy process, which we claim on behalf of the people of the world. parminder > In my country at least (Australia), we have a history of Murdoch media > telling people who to vote for, and they follow. We also have a long > history of governments of all political persuasions bowing to > corporate interests in determining policy, with all too frequent > outbreaks of corrupt payments to politicians and political parties. > The power of corporate "donations", from what I can see, is even worse > in some other countries. > > And of course the history of the UN is hardly one of real equitable > arrangements between these corruptible nation states either. > > The article you quote alludes to this problem, stating as regards > nation states ; "A ‘global redesign’ is no doubt needed, but one that > should genuinely reflect “everybody’s business” by preventing business > interests from crowding the public out of the tent ". > > I couldn't agree more. > > For us I think the lesson is that multistakeholderism is, like any > form of governance, highly corruptible . > > The term multistakeholder appears to have entered or vocabulary in > about 2004. As Markus Kummer points out, "it is worth mentioning that > in the discussions on Internet governance during the first phase of > WSIS, the term usually used to describe the existing arrangements was > “private sector-leadership”, in line with the language used in the > setting up of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN)". > > It should be remembered then that the term multistakeholder was > retrofitted to existing internet governance, rather than being a > central design element. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: parminder > Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 5:02 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms > (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) > > > please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about > > http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business > > The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic.. > > Hope civil society groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, > and history questions its role in subverting democracy. > > parminder > > > > On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I also have concerns with those who don't insist on full >> accountability and transparency for multistakeholder processes or who >> equate an insistence on accountability and transparency as somehow >> being "opposition" to those processes. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:34 PM >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms >> (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) >> >> >> >> On 07-Feb-14 14:06, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> that can hide behind multistakeholderism (or even behind opposition to >>> multistakeholderism) >> >> Thanks you for include the parenthetical. To be honest that is my >> greater concerns. >> >> avri >> >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From avri at acm.org Sun Feb 9 08:41:41 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:41:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <5F8A1479C59647F09AE5FCF40DA66449@Toshiba> <52F736EF.4080308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52F78595.6010609@acm.org> (giving up on the idea of not cc'ing) On 09-Feb-14 04:20, Ian Peter wrote: > both are susceptible to this problem and unable to deal with it. It is the 'unable to deal with it that I' reject. I think that within our countries for everything that has to do with human rights, we need to be in a constant struggle to improve our representative democracies. As, for example, I believe those of us in the US have a pervasive monitoring disaster we need to fix. I also believe that within the governance of the Internet, and other essentially international phenomena, we need to be constantly improving and furthering the practice of multistakeholder governance. And it is improvable, it just takes good will and the ability to work together to overcome our essential differences and improve our processes. I see the multistakeholder models as the next steps in democracy - from representative democracy to a participatory democracy that includes representative democracies but adds to them. It is still very new and improvable/destructible model. That is one of the things we should be focused on, improving and protecting the model - from those who would corrupt it or/and destroy it. The model still breaks down on many occasions, and constantly needs work to maintain and improve. Just as representative democracy itself still needs improvement in those countries where it exists, many countries still have a long way to go before representative democracy is even a consideration. Only a very few nations are already working on participatory democracy. Most forms of democracy everywhere are at best poor reflections of what they could be. But instead of focusing on the work of improving multistakeholder governance, we are constantly having to defend it from being killed by its enemies from all sides. If efforts to build genuinely multistakeholder governance of the Internet fail, we would be left with nothing but unfettered national control in some spots and unfettered corporate control in other spots, with a lots of revolving door money and power exchanges between the two. I would see this as a tragedy, which we have to be in a constant struggle to avoid. I think any work we do as a group should with the end in mind of improving the multistakeholder models, not destroying them. avri From nb at bollow.ch Sun Feb 9 12:13:58 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:13:58 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> Message-ID: <20140209181358.5f695c8f@quill> Gene Kimmelman wrote: > Michael and Norbert, as someone who practices political engagement to > promote policy goals on a daily basis, I'm certainly very interested > in engaging with you on this. But I'm a bit perplexed at the > suggestion that this lens on IG process or principles has been > lacking from the process so far. So maybe you can explain -- is it > that you have a different theory of how CS can/should seek to become > more powerful? A different approach to advocacy than what most > activists/advocates have been practicing? What I'm looking to create is a good and productive discussion on problem statements and solution proposals for making Internet governance structures (and also governance structures for other global concerns) robust against capture and other forms of undue influence by special interests. Nota bene, I'm not speaking for Michael here, although I hope that he'll be an active participant in the discussions that I want to make happen. Greetings, Norbert From nb at bollow.ch Sun Feb 9 14:08:12 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:08:12 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20140209200812.40d02420@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get posted on the IGC and BestBits lists. Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms against capture and other forms of undue influence by special interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough crossposting problem) already. Greetings, Norbert > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for > the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly > take these realities of particular interests (which are often in > conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > 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… > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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 whatever it takes 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. > > > > > > > > This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple > > common sense. > > > > > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been > > telling us? > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja > > Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > > To: Anne Jellema > > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); > > genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive > > proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few > > comments below: > > > > > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema > > wrote: > > > > /SNIP/ > > > > 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?! > > > > > > > > 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: > > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised > > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Marilia Maciel > > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit > > - IG governance > > To: Andrew Puddephatt > > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > - 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... > > > > > > > > - 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: > > > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > > > 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? > > > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back > > to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > > > 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). > > > > 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? > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and > > hoping we can continue the discussions. > > > > Thanks again for the good start > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin > > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > —Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 17:16:40 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 22:16:40 -0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to support its application in the concrete; talking about the application of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current CS activities and outputs. Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. This is the absolute minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet public policy space. Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed. It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at least a certain degree of internal transparency. If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion. M From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 7:50 AM To: genekimmelman at gmail.com; gurstein at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Agree with Gene. 1net is an experiment we can abandon at any time if it does not become productive. So no I do not support the sort of statement suggested below. Which is not to rule out a consensus document of some sort in the future addressing accountability and transparency issues. From: genekimmelman at gmail.com Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 3:18 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net With all due respect, making 1net the focus of concern strikes me as a distraction from more important substantive issues. We need the Brazil conference ( not 1net) to be inclusive, open and address civil society priorities. -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 02/08/2014 10:58 PM (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Colleagues, As an instance of the kind of Transparency and Accountability that I think, at a minimum, is necessary to safeguard against the “capture” of multistakeholder processes can I suggest the following: Since roughly 24 hours have elapsed since I sent the below message concerning the need for full Transparency and Accountability for 1Net, with no comments in opposition, can we take it that there is a rough consensus in support of this call? Such apparently being the case can it be further suggested that “we” as Civil Society currently being represented in the 1Net Steering Committee direct “our” representatives to insist on a full Transparency account from 1Net as per the below and invite other stakeholder representatives on the 1Net Steering Committee to join us in this call. Note, I will be travelling for the next 12 hours or so and will be unable to respond to emails. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 5:12 AM To: 'Anne Jellema' Cc: 'Anja Kovacs'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Mike Godwin'; 'genekimmelman at gmail.com'; 'jeremy at ciroap.org'; 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; John Curran (jcurran at istaff.org) Subject: RE: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG Good question Anne and let me give a somewhat lengthy reply to cover your question and several of the others… My starting proposition is that “we” (let’s for the moment accept that “we” here are a stand-in for a broad-based and inclusive civil society representation) insist on, as a minimum measure, full transparency and accountability of all “multistakeholder” processes in the Internet Governance sphere and in the absence of this full transparency and accountability it is assumed that the MS process in question is illegitimate and to be rejected out of hand with the burden of demonstrating transparency and accountability being on the advocates/proponents of that MS process. By insisting on this as a minimum we are at least providing the basis for a scrutiny/challenge of the possibility of capture and while most certainly not foreclosing on the possibility of capture/subversion some tools for making an effective challenge/sunlighting of these potentials for capture/subversion would at least be available. Someone asked for a practical/detailed example… (I worked as an auditor for several years (for the UN and the Canadian Government so forgive me for putting the below in somewhat of an audit format… Let’s take 1Net as a MS space/process for an example…. 1. Where did 1Net come from? Did it arise spontaneously one day from Adiel’s brow or was there background discussion, review, confirmation? If so who was involved in those discussions? Is there a trail of any sort linking 1Net to earlier discussions, authorizations, decision making processes. (Here one wouldn’t necessarily expect a formal process but an indication of the informal process and who was involved in that process would provide something of an “audit trail”.) 2. When 1Net selected certain groupings to act as its surrogate in identifying candidates for various positions including it’s Steering Committee who determined which organizations were selected, what criteria were used, what other organizations were selected and discarded and again what criteria were used for discarding these? Who were parties to these decisions and on what basis were these parties selected to be involved in these decisions? What formal processes for doing this authorization were followed. Is the documentation concerning this part of the public record? If not why not? (Again there might not necessarily be a formal process but again “transparency” and “accountability” would require some form of response to these questions. 3. Concerning the “Summaries” of the discussions presented by 1Net. Who prepared these summaries? Who paid for these summaries to be prepared? Who developed the terms of reference guiding these summaries? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this Summary? Who signed off on the Summary before it was distributed? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the response by Adiel to the first of these questions which was to side-step and stonewall i.e. to give no response, would to me as an auditor begin fiercely ringing bells and I would then begin to look for whatever leverage I had to insist on an answer. (In this instance there was an expenditure of resources, certainly time but very likely money so some documentation should be available and if not that is a red flag in itself. 4. Concerning the creation of the “forums” website and overall conceptual and web based formats and architecture. . Who prepared this format and designed and developed the web site? Who paid for this to be designed and developed? Who developed the terms of reference guiding this design? If contracts were involved who authorized the contracts and under what budgetary authority? Who supervised the work of preparing this site? Who signed off on the site before it was made public? Under what authority were those who did the sign-off operating? (Note that the audit process is one that uses (imposed if necessary) transparency to ensure accountability. Without making any suggestion concerning the nature of the 1Net processes or their background and funding the questions that I’ve posed above are rather basic ones that any auditor for a public authority would ask in this context.) So why does this matter? Given the potential current and long term significance of the processes with which these activities and 1Net are engaged achieving this minimum level of transparency is surely necessary and warranted. And before anyone suggests that these matters/activities are trivial and that what is important is the outcomes I would simply point in the direction of this The way in which we frame an issue largely determines how that issue will be understood and acted upon (Dr. Birjana Scott as quoted on the Diplo website ) and the very extensive documentation of this process of controlling an argument (or discussion) by controlling the framing of that argument by Prof. George Lakoff and others. 1Net has been in the business of “framing” the Internet Governance discussion at each point in the process—its arrival on the scene and its interposing itself as the space for multistakeholder discussion in the Internet Governance area, its selection of who it will allow into the discussion and who will be excluded, its provision of a “summary” of the discussion, and of course its “framing” of the discussion through the establishment of a set of pre-structured forums. This process of “framing” of the Internet Governance discussion by 1Net and whoever is paying for/directing 1Net’s activities has been done with no oversight, no transparency and no accountability but is now taken as the accepted practice for civil society (and other?) participation in the Brazil meeting (and beyond?). I’m not at this stage attributing any motives to this “framing” process… We don’t have enough information to attribute motives or intentions but what we have in front of us is I believe sufficient to insist on a full accounting and full transparency at which time a judgment could be made. I see no reason why the information requested above could not and should not be made more or less immediately available? If these are “public” processes operating in the “public interest” as is being indicated, then they should be expected to be as accountable and transparent as any other public processes. In the audit biz it is only when information is not made available that the red flags start going up and the suspicions are aroused. Mike From: Anne Jellema [mailto:anne at webfoundation.org] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 5:29 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anja Kovacs; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mike Godwin; genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG A salutary reminder Michael. Personally, I'd have to be the first to admit charges of naïveté, although neither Andrew nor Anja strike me as especially tarrable with that brush. Nevertheless it's always useful for aspirations to be informed by a hard-edged analysis of realpolitik. And vice versa. So: what's your starting proposition for a defensive strategy? And: what do you think we should be defending? Best Anne On Friday, February 7, 2014, michael gurstein wrote: 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… 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. 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. 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. 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 whatever it takes 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. This isn’t paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common sense. Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM To: Anne Jellema Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 18:16:02 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:16:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com> Michael, We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago. I think that we can count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this conversation. First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net, although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that provided people to the 1net steering committee. I admit that I don't understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we differ as it doesn’t bother me. Here is why. Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder groups, but not between them. Ultimately, this is not productive; it results in multiple echo chambers — the image that comes to mind is of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted. In one form or another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened. We should thank its originators. It is a meeting place, with no content except that which we contribute to it. Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture? You express concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the on-going discussion.” I understand your concern, but each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there were any such concerns, would they not be reported out? Can we not let the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern? Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of ideas to the Brazil meeting. I think that is not correct. Brazil apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting, and it chose 1net. I suspect that in part it did to want to be the arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of others. I don’t blame them; they want to work for solutions, not solve representational disputes. IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they must meet. I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG discussion. Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through 1net, by the beginning of March. 1net is not in any way transmitting or filtering this input (nor should it). All stakeholder groups are in this together. We want an Internet that is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or outright capture by any sectoral interest. We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable collations, and we won’t get those solutions unless we come up with good ideas and discuss/debate them. Negativity really does’;t help. We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that. Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas? George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to support its application in the concrete; talking about the application of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current CS activities and outputs. > > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. This is the absolute minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet public policy space. > > Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed. > > It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at least a certain degree of internal transparency. > > If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion. > > M > <> From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Feb 9 23:01:17 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 04:01:17 -0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com> Message-ID: <055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com> Tks George, Responses inline -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM To: gurstein michael Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com; Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net Michael, We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago. I think that we can count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this conversation. [MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never put his very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to Telecom regulatory matters to work in these areas :) First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net, although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that provided people to the 1net steering committee. I admit that I don't understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we differ as it doesn't bother me. Here is why. [MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered by" not understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the non-acceptance that we should and have a right to knowledge/understanding about that process.. 1Net is important and potentially (based on the aspirations that some including yourself below have expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a requirement for full transparency in this and other areas Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder groups, but not between them. Ultimately, this is not productive; it results in multiple echo chambers - the image that comes to mind is of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted. In one form or another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened. We should thank its originators. It is a meeting place, with no content except that which we contribute to it. [MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you. But 1Net has demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a "meeting place". 1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by what process and who had input into this process and by what authorization did they act in this way--without attributing any bias or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion 2. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's selection of representation on various of its Committees etc. interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by what process and who had input into this process and by what authorization did they act in this way--again without attributing any bias or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion 3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into this process 4. it expended resources in designing and producing a set of Forums and an associated website--who provided and directed those resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately or otherwise built into this process Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture? You express concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the on-going discussion." I understand your concern, but each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there were any such concerns, would they not be reported out? Can we not let the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern? [MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the information requested above was available either internally or externally we have no evidence on the basis of which to make judgments as to whether it is reasonable to let the process continue and extract value from it" and given the lack of information concerning the #1 above we again do not have sufficient information to " let the presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern", particularly since concerns have been expressed with respect to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent selection processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector). Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of ideas to the Brazil meeting. I think that is not correct. Brazil apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting, and it chose 1net. I suspect that in part it did to want to be the arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of others. I don't blame them; they want to work for solutions, not solve representational disputes. [MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was both "interposed" and "interposed itself" and my concern and desire for information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net "interposed itself" and thus information concerning the background to 1Net should be made available. IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they must meet. [MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do "define existing problems accurately" and in a manner that is not otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by overt action) or implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate, discussion and output as for example, through the exclusion of certain voices or the undue promotion of other voices; or through the introduction of latent "filtering/framing" of discussion as for example, in the manner in which discussion is "Summarized" or in how discussion is channeled into certain directions through the design of a pattern of "Forums"). Surely you agree that full disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about such possible bias. I don't see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG discussion. [MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through 1net, by the beginning of March. 1net is not in any way transmitting or filtering this input (nor should it). [MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a substantive and significant role as "Summarizing" and "framing through Forums" certain inputs into this process and it is in this that I am suggesting the requirement for transparency All stakeholder groups are in this together. We want an Internet that is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or outright capture by any sectoral interest. [MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the process to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability within stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups start off in the process with more influence and resources than others and thus (to go back to Anne's question where all of this started) among the greatest tools to ensure against such "capture by any sectoral interest" is full transparency and accountability through appropriate and inclusive structures-which is what I would think we would all be striving for. We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable collations, and we won't get those solutions unless we come up with good ideas and discuss/debate them. [MG>] agreed Negativity really does';t help. [MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for reasonable disclosure/transparency. This only leads to further distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes that you are pointing to. We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that. Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas? [MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary to ensure that it is not, as the "agora*" started out i.e. a place where "free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king or council" but rather is, as it later became, "a marketplace where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their goods (MG: "and ideas") and the best way to ensure that the agora is the latter and not the former, is full transparency as to processes and inputs. And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you who is as you say " not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net" and not from 1Net itself, who could as I've said repeatedly end this discussion once and for all by spending no more than one or two hours in responding to a set of questions which any "public" and publically accountable process would find completely normal and acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my auditor's hat) suggests that perhaps there is something to hide which the responsible parties are unwilling to disclose. Mike George * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while declaiming on the possibility of "capture", and then refusing to support its application in the concrete; talking about the application of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current CS activities and outputs. > > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. This is the absolute minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet public policy space. > > Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed. > > It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the contracting of the "Summary" and the design of the "Forums" and the "Forums website". This would go some way in providing assurance of at least a certain degree of internal transparency. > > If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion. > > M > <> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Mon Feb 10 01:53:32 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:53:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein wrote: > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy outcomes of that, and future, events. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Feb 2 15:00:39 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 15:00:39 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Message-ID: Well said!  -------- Original message -------- From: Ian Peter Date: 02/02/2014 2:51 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Andrew Puddephatt ,Marilia Maciel Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance I wonder if there is another agenda we need to address here.   The dominant models that exist in similar industries, and which I believe are the real battles going on in the world of internet governance, are between governmental control and industry self regulation (aka unregulated industry dominance.)  I think we need to address this and make clear that industry self-regulation with no governmental controls at all is not an appropriate pattern for internet development. Only in this context do I think can we have a decent conversation about multistakeholderism.   Multistakeholderism is, to at least some parties, a wonderful mask to aid industry dominance with no governmental involvement whatsoever.  And here the dominant industry players often find willing supporters in the technical community. I think civil society needs to be clear that, if it supports multistakeholderism, it is not giving support to no governmental involvement at all or to unregulated industry dominance. I think this is a real debate we have to have.   And I think we need to be honest about the fact that not all stakeholders have equal power in this – civil society arguments do not carry the weight of the large internet corporations, and to pretend that ms-ism somehow changes this imbalance is either naive or deliberately misleading.   I mention this here because, by the looks of Brazil and the way the agenda is shaping up, we are going to talk about principles for governance, and this word multistakeholderism is going to be front and centre. I think we need to unwrap it a little and state clearly that the real issues going on are between governmental and industry control, neither of which of itself is of itself a satisfactory model.   That’s just some thoughts which I wonder if we could include here. Elsewhere I think we need to have the larger debate about the mask of ms-ism, but I think also in this paper we should at least mention the battle between governmental control and industry control and how ms-ism is being used as a diversion and cover-up for a more substantial issue.   Ian Peter       From: Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 1:52 AM To: Marilia Maciel Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance   Thanks Marilia   I’m back online now and picking up on my 430 e-mails so apologies to those who are waiting for a response from me.   There are good reflections – my sense from them is that you have questions about a distributed governance model in that to may not be clear/purposeful enough to address the weaknesses in the current arrangements – is that a fair summary of what you’re saying?  Or am I over interpreting?   I think we shared your view that existing multi-stakeholderism has not provided corrections to imbalances of power – the real question is whether the move to a more state based system of governance would provide such a corrective or whether it would simply accelerate making the internet a geo-political battlefield (personally I suspect we are already there).  In looking for a more dispersed governance model we were looking for a way of facilitating the input of a range of public interest views to counter the growing voices calling for state sovereignty over the internet.  But I’d be the first to say that there are no perfect solutions in our current climate.   I’ve given the 6th as the deadline for final comments and I’l try and process them after that and get back to people after that   Andrew   From: Marilia Maciel Date: Wednesday, 22 January 2014 22:18 To: andrew Puddephatt Cc: "" Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance   Hi Andrew and all,   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.   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.   - 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.   - 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...   - 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: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; 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? c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 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). 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? 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   - 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.   - 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.   That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília           On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Hi everyone   From: Marianne Franklin Date: Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:57 To: andrew Puddephatt , "parminder at itforchange.net" < -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 10 02:16:09 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:46:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <52F87CB9.1080309@itforchange.net> On Monday 10 February 2014 12:23 PM, David Cake wrote: > > On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein > wrote: >> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a >> formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and >> the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes >> including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures >> and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. > > I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and > accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a > positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much > larger amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which > at this point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative > issues to do with a single event, rather than focussing on the > substantive policy outcomes of that, and future, events. This is untrue on both counts. The fact being as below; (1) The primary purpose of the 1Net is to strongly influence (if not actually write) the outcomes of the Brazil meeting (something I have been insisting since the very beginning) (2) The serious 1Net-ers want it to be a standing multistakeholder mechanism. So many have explicitly said so on so many lists. I think one-sided naivete is not the best response for civil society to take to all this, which unfortunately seems to be the dominant response. (I say one-sided naivete becuase there is hardly any naivete when for instance a UN kind of process is involved.) People in post colonial societies cannot but use colonial analogies to understand geo- political situations. The British set up an establishment in India 'merely' to facilitate its trade to 'the east'. They ended up ruling the country for more than a century. Apologies if the analogy is seen as 'too strong' - it is merely to underline the need for political foresight... parminder > Regards > > David > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Feb 10 03:21:37 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:21:37 -0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com> A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning of 1Net (certainly by myself). My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful response. M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein wrote: Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy outcomes of that, and future, events. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon Feb 10 11:32:26 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:32:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net - We are Caesar Wife In-Reply-To: <52F8F713.3020107@acm.org> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com> <055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com> <52F8ED2D.3010808@communisphere.com> <52F8F713.3020107@acm.org> Message-ID: <59BE145A-7F0F-4413-A759-A691C81F6F64@theglobaljournal.net> Avri, Tank you for your message, even though it brings no answer to the pending questions. Everyone can measure that the issues at stake do have serious consequences. But there is still a difference between "not having the answers" and "trying to elude, or hide the issues at stake". Moreover, if you are not able to bring an answer, or be part of an honest audience that wishes to keep trust around within these present postings, why to bother with an empty message. So thanks for not participating to this very needed endeavor. Then maybe do not feel fill the air with additional vacuum. Vacuum sometimes confuses people. Michael, Thomas, me and many others do have a serious, urgent, necessary need for good answers - as you might have noticed, there are people in the 1net "thing" that are transfuses from the lists, and all of that is far from neutral. Democracy is a better deal than Asymmetocracy (see AMS model). My impression is that you underestimate what it is at stake Avri, and why Michael's questions are simply absolutely critical. Or do you deliberately try to avoid some hard facts? Whatever! We will look elsewhere for answers. And they will come. I agree with Thomas :"Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the billions who will be affected by our actions." History will tell who were the decent folks trying to have a fair Internet debate and governance. And who were the Asymmetrics. JC Le 10 févr. 2014 à 16:58, Avri Doria a écrit : > Hi, > > Umm, we are not Ceasar's Wife as we are not subordinate to the others as Ceasar's wife was to Ceasar. I assume you meant Pompeia as she was the one he divorced with those words. > > We need to be transparent and accountable because that is something that needs to be a default for all groups. /1net could be much more voluntarily transparent and accountable. > > I will not be joining the self-designated&appointed /1net Transparency and Accountability group, having just gotten off such an effort and found it to be exhausting and very time consuming to do a proper and neutral job of it. I wish you all the best of luck at achieving an outcome that others can look at and see as legitimate and useful. > > avri > > > > On 10-Feb-14 10:15, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >> Dear Civil Society Colleagues, >> >> The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who pepper >> the various governance lists and attend the conferences as >> representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above >> suspicion. We are Caesars wife >> . >> >> A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent activities >> involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been resisted is >> confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not, our good work >> will take place under not in a cloud. >> >> Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the >> billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past our >> heritage. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Thomas Lowenhaupt >> >> >> On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> Tks George, >>> >>> Responses inline >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM >>> To: gurstein michael >>> Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com; Civil IGC Society Internet >>> Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for >>> 1Net >>> >>> Michael, >>> >>> We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken >>> introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago. I think that we can >>> count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this >>> conversation. >>> >>> */[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never >>> put his very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to >>> Telecom regulatory matters to work in these areas :) /* >>> >>> First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net, >>> although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that >>> provided people to the 1net steering committee. I admit that I don't >>> understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we >>> differ as it doesn’t bother me. Here is why. >>> >>> */[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered >>> by" not understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the >>> non-acceptance that we should and have a right to >>> knowledge/understanding about that process.. 1Net is important and >>> potentially (based on the aspirations that some including yourself >>> below have expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a >>> requirement for full transparency in this and other areas/* >>> >>> Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder >>> groups, but not between them. Ultimately, this is not productive; it >>> results in multiple echo chambers — the image that comes to mind is >>> of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in >>> London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted. In one form or >>> another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened. We >>> should thank its originators. It is a meeting place, with no content >>> except that which we contribute to it. >>> >>> */[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you. But 1Net >>> has demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a >>> "meeting place". /* >>> >>> */1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's >>> Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by >>> what process and who had input into this process and by what >>> authorization did they act in this way--without attributing any bias >>> or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be >>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was >>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/* >>> >>> */2. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's >>> selection of representation on various of its Committees etc. >>> interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by >>> what process and who had input into this process and by what >>> authorization did they act in this way--again without attributing any >>> bias or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be >>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was >>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of inclusion/exclusion/* >>> >>> */3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of >>> discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without >>> attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other >>> criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly >>> presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately >>> or otherwise built into this process/* >>> >>> */4. it expended resources in designing and producing a set of Forums >>> and an associated website--who provided and directed those >>> resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or >>> interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should >>> not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias >>> was deliberately or otherwise built into this process/* >>> >>> Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture? You express >>> concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been >>> involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided >>> for framing the on-going discussion.” I understand your concern, but >>> each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there >>> were any such concerns, would they not be reported out? Can we not let >>> the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence >>> of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern? >>> >>> */[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the >>> information requested above was available either internally or >>> externally we have no evidence on the basis of which to make judgments >>> as to whether it is reasonable to let the process continue and extract >>> value from it" and given the lack of information concerning the #1 >>> above we again do not have sufficient information to " let the >>> presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a >>> concern", particularly since concerns have been expressed with respect >>> to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent selection >>> processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups >>> represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector)./* >>> >>> Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of >>> ideas to the Brazil meeting. I think that is not correct. Brazil >>> apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting, >>> and it chose 1net. I suspect that in part it did to want to be the >>> arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form >>> multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of >>> others. I don’t blame them; they want to work for solutions, not >>> solve representational disputes. >>> >>> */[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was >>> both “interposed” and ”interposed itself” and my concern and desire >>> for information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net >>> "interposed itself" and thus information concerning the background to >>> 1Net should be made available./* >>> >>> IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the >>> Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems >>> accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they >>> must meet. >>> >>> */[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do >>> "define existing problems _accurately_" and in a manner that is not >>> otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by >>> overt action) or implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate, >>> discussion and output as for example, through the exclusion of certain >>> voices or the undue promotion of other voices; or through the >>> introduction of latent “filtering/framing” of discussion as for >>> example, in the manner in which discussion is “Summarized” or in how >>> discussion is channeled into certain directions through the design of >>> a pattern of “Forums”). Surely you agree that full >>> disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability >>> governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about >>> such possible bias./* >>> >>> I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas >>> emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to >>> discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG >>> discussion. >>> >>> */[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above/* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any >>> kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through >>> 1net, by the beginning of March. 1net is not in any way transmitting >>> or filtering this input (nor should it). >>> >>> */[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a >>> substantive and significant role as “Summarizing” and “framing through >>> Forums” certain inputs into this process and it is in this that I am >>> suggesting the requirement for transparency /* >>> >>> All stakeholder groups are in this together. We want an Internet that >>> is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or >>> outright capture by any sectoral interest. >>> >>> */[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the >>> process to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability >>> within stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS >>> stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder >>> collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. /* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> */As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups >>> start off in the process with more influence and resources than others >>> and thus (to go back to Anne’s question where all of this started) >>> among the greatest tools to ensure against such “capture by any >>> sectoral interest” is full transparency and accountability through >>> appropriate and inclusive structures—which is what I would think we >>> would all be striving for. /* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable >>> collations, and we won’t get those solutions unless we come up with >>> good ideas and discuss/debate them. >>> >>> */[MG>] agreed/* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> Negativity really does’;t help. >>> >>> */[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for >>> reasonable disclosure/transparency. This only leads to further >>> distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes that you are >>> pointing to./* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that. >>> Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas? >>> >>> */[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary >>> to ensure that it is not, as the “agora*” started out i.e. a place >>> where “/*free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in >>> the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king >>> or council” */but rather is, as it later became,/* “a marketplace >>> where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their goods */(MG: “and >>> ideas”) and the best way to ensure that the agora is the latter and >>> not the former, is full transparency as to processes and inputs. /* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> */And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you >>> who is as you say “/* not one of the directly responsible parties for >>> 1net” */and not from 1Net itself, who could as I’ve said repeatedly >>> end this discussion once and for all by spending no more than one or >>> two hours in responding to a set of questions which any “public” and >>> publically accountable process would find completely normal and >>> acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my auditor’s hat) suggests >>> that perhaps there is something to hide which the responsible parties >>> are unwilling to disclose./* >>> >>> */Mike/* >>> >>> George >>> >>> */*/* */http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora/* >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein >> > wrote: >>> >>> > I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one >>> hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while >>> declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to >>> support its application in the concrete; talking about the application >>> of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and >>> not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and >>> significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current >>> CS activities and outputs. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a >>> formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and >>> the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes >>> including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures >>> and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. This is the absolute >>> minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And >>> certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion >>> not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public >>> bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet >>> public policy space. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two >>> required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources >>> and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to >>> assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture >>> have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been >>> provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those >>> opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be revealed. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering >>> Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for >>> example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the >>> contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the >>> “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at >>> least a certain degree of internal transparency. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely >>> resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is >>> there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming >>> insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate >>> and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted >>> by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > M >>> >>> > >>> >>> <> >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Feb 10 12:08:17 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:08:17 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net - We are Caesar Wife In-Reply-To: <59BE145A-7F0F-4413-A759-A691C81F6F64@theglobaljournal.net> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <1059D395-A84C-4187-B74C-CA6A4980CF52@gmail.com> <055c01cf2614$c1ecd980$45c68c80$@gmail.com> <52F8ED2D.3010808@communisphere.com> <52F8F713.3020107@acm.org> <59BE145A-7F0F-4413-A759-A691C81F6F64@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <52F90781.3070807@acm.org> (ignoring cross posting rule yet again, but am responding to a cross post) Hi, Sorry my answer was deemed empty. I try to put content in, but sometimes, I guess I just miss the mark. I just want to point out related to my note: - I have no authority to make /1net more transparent or to reveal anything. I am just another non-governmental participant, though I do support the effort. - I have asked transparency questions on the /1net list in relation to things like the open archive for the /1net-sc. So I have been mildly active in the same cause as you are espousing. I certainly have not had the zeal of others in attacking this particular issue. - I wished you all well in your effort. But, I accept that some may judge me to be a Bad Asymmetric Person (BAP). That's life. avri On 10-Feb-14 11:32, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Avri, > > Tank you for your message, even though it brings no answer to the > pending questions. > > Everyone can measure that the issues at stake do have serious > consequences. But there is still a difference between "not having the > answers" and "trying to elude, or hide the issues at stake". Moreover, > if you are not able to bring an answer, or be part of an honest audience > that wishes to keep trust around within these present postings, why to > bother with an empty message. So thanks for not participating to this > very needed endeavor. Then maybe do not feel fill the air with > additional vacuum. Vacuum sometimes confuses people. > > Michael, Thomas, me and many others do have a serious, urgent, necessary > need for good answers - as you might have noticed, there are people in > the 1net "thing" that are transfuses from the lists, and all of that is > far from neutral. Democracy is a better deal than Asymmetocracy (see AMS > model). > > My impression is that you underestimate what it is at stake Avri, and > why Michael's questions are simply absolutely critical. Or do you > deliberately try to avoid some hard facts? > > Whatever! We will look elsewhere for answers. And they will come. I > agree with Thomas :"Those privileged to participate here have a > responsibility to the billions who will be affected by our actions." > > History will tell who were the decent folks trying to have a fair > Internet debate and governance. And who were the Asymmetrics. > > JC > > Le 10 févr. 2014 à 16:58, Avri Doria a écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> Umm, we are not Ceasar's Wife as we are not subordinate to the others >> as Ceasar's wife was to Ceasar. I assume you meant Pompeia as she was >> the one he divorced with those words. >> >> We need to be transparent and accountable because that is something >> that needs to be a default for all groups. /1net could be much more >> voluntarily transparent and accountable. >> >> I will not be joining the self-designated&appointed /1net Transparency >> and Accountability group, having just gotten off such an effort and >> found it to be exhausting and very time consuming to do a proper and >> neutral job of it. I wish you all the best of luck at achieving an >> outcome that others can look at and see as legitimate and useful. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 10-Feb-14 10:15, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >>> Dear Civil Society Colleagues, >>> >>> The several dozen civil society advocates and representatives who pepper >>> the various governance lists and attend the conferences as >>> representative of the general good have a responsibility to be above >>> suspicion. We are Caesars wife >>> . >>> >>> A colleague has raised questions about the origin and recent activities >>> involving 1Net. Why Michael Gurstein's request has been resisted is >>> confounding. Those questions must be answered. If not, our good work >>> will take place under not in a cloud. >>> >>> Those privileged to participate here have a responsibility to the >>> billions who will be affected by our actions. Let's not rush past our >>> heritage. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Thomas Lowenhaupt >>> >>> >>> On 2/9/2014 11:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> >>>> Tks George, >>>> >>>> Responses inline >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:16 PM >>>> To: gurstein michael >>>> Cc: Peter Ian; genekimmelman at gmail.com >>>> ; Civil IGC Society Internet >>>> Governance Caucus -; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for >>>> 1Net >>>> >>>> Michael, >>>> >>>> We have known each other for some time, ever since Mike McCracken >>>> introduced us virtually at least 10 years ago. I think that we can >>>> count on an adequate reservoir of mutual respect to have this >>>> conversation. >>>> >>>> */[MG>] yes and I've thought that it is too bad that Mike has never >>>> put his very considerable experience and skepticism with respect to >>>> Telecom regulatory matters to work in these areas :) /* >>>> >>>> First, I am not one of the directly responsible parties for 1net, >>>> although I was chair of the technical stakeholder group NomCom that >>>> provided people to the 1net steering committee. I admit that I don't >>>> understand the exact mechanism through which 1net was formed, but we >>>> differ as it doesn’t bother me. Here is why. >>>> >>>> */[MG>] okay... (BTW, I should say that I'm not necessarily "bothered >>>> by" not understanding the mechanism rather I am bothered by the >>>> non-acceptance that we should and have a right to >>>> knowledge/understanding about that process.. 1Net is important and >>>> potentially (based on the aspirations that some including yourself >>>> below have expressed for it), very important, and thus there is a >>>> requirement for full transparency in this and other areas/* >>>> >>>> Before 1net, IG discussions generally were intense within stakeholder >>>> groups, but not between them. Ultimately, this is not productive; it >>>> results in multiple echo chambers — the image that comes to mind is >>>> of different stakeholder groups on separate soap boxes in Hyde Park in >>>> London, all preaching to the (semi-) converted. In one form or >>>> another, the 1net list had to happen and should have happened. We >>>> should thank its originators. It is a meeting place, with no content >>>> except that which we contribute to it. >>>> >>>> */[MG>] If this were in fact the case I would agree with you. But 1Net >>>> has demonstrated in repeated instances that it is more than simply a >>>> "meeting place". /* >>>> >>>> */1. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's >>>> Steering Committee Stakeholder groups (and thus excluded others)--by >>>> what process and who had input into this process and by what >>>> authorization did they act in this way--without attributing any bias >>>> or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be >>>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was >>>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of >>>> inclusion/exclusion/* >>>> >>>> */2. it designated certain participants as interlocutors for it's >>>> selection of representation on various of its Committees etc. >>>> interfacing with the Brazil process (and thus excluded others)--by >>>> what process and who had input into this process and by what >>>> authorization did they act in this way--again without attributing any >>>> bias or other criticism do you see any reason why this should not be >>>> publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was >>>> deliberately or otherwise built into this process of >>>> inclusion/exclusion/* >>>> >>>> */3. it expended resources in producing a "Summary" of >>>> discussions--who provided and directed those resources--again without >>>> attributing any inappropriate action or interference or other >>>> criticism do you see any reason why this should not be publicly >>>> presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias was deliberately >>>> or otherwise built into this process/* >>>> >>>> */4. it expended resources in designing and producing a set of Forums >>>> and an associated website--who provided and directed those >>>> resources--again without attributing any inappropriate action or >>>> interference or other criticism do you see any reason why this should >>>> not be publicly presented if only to ensure that for example, no bias >>>> was deliberately or otherwise built into this process/* >>>> >>>> Is the steering committee biased, or subject to capture? You express >>>> concern that "no elements of corporate or other capture have been >>>> involved or are inserted into the structures that have been provided >>>> for framing the on-going discussion.” I understand your concern, but >>>> each stakeholder group is represented o that committee, and if there >>>> were any such concerns, would they not be reported out? Can we not let >>>> the process continue and extract value from it, and let the presence >>>> of representatives on the committee deal with such a concern? >>>> >>>> */[MG>] One would certainly hope so, but without evidence that the >>>> information requested above was available either internally or >>>> externally we have no evidence on the basis of which to make judgments >>>> as to whether it is reasonable to let the process continue and extract >>>> value from it" and given the lack of information concerning the #1 >>>> above we again do not have sufficient information to " let the >>>> presence of representatives on the committee deal with such a >>>> concern", particularly since concerns have been expressed with respect >>>> to possible bias resulting from the non-transparent selection >>>> processes with respect to two of the three stakeholder groups >>>> represented in the Steering Committee (CS and the corporate sector)./* >>>> >>>> Now to your concern that 1net is apparently the official conduit of >>>> ideas to the Brazil meeting. I think that is not correct. Brazil >>>> apparently wanted to have one administrative conduit to its meeting, >>>> and it chose 1net. I suspect that in part it did to want to be the >>>> arbiter of independent streams of information and requests form >>>> multiple groups, some of which were contesting the legitimacy of >>>> others. I don’t blame them; they want to work for solutions, not >>>> solve representational disputes. >>>> >>>> */[MG>] And again I agree with this but note that I said that 1Net was >>>> both “interposed” and ”interposed itself” and my concern and desire >>>> for information has to do with the latter element i.e. that 1Net >>>> "interposed itself" and thus information concerning the background to >>>> 1Net should be made available./* >>>> >>>> IMO, the best contribution that we, as a community concerned about the >>>> Internet, can make is to search for ideas, to define existing problems >>>> accurately and to test solutions against the requirements that they >>>> must meet. >>>> >>>> */[MG>] I agree again but my concern is with ensuring that we do >>>> "define existing problems _accurately_" and in a manner that is not >>>> otherwise structured so as to introduce either a manifest bias (by >>>> overt action) or implicit bias (through the pre-structuring of debate, >>>> discussion and output as for example, through the exclusion of certain >>>> voices or the undue promotion of other voices; or through the >>>> introduction of latent “filtering/framing” of discussion as for >>>> example, in the manner in which discussion is “Summarized” or in how >>>> discussion is channeled into certain directions through the design of >>>> a pattern of “Forums”). Surely you agree that full >>>> disclosure/transparency and a visible chain of accountability >>>> governing such processes would immediately remove most concerns about >>>> such possible bias./* >>>> >>>> I don’t see 1net as tied to the Brazil conference, but if useful ideas >>>> emerge from 1net, surely they could and should be used as input to >>>> discussions in Brazil, as well as input to any other formalized IG >>>> discussion. >>>> >>>> */[MG>] again I agree but see my caveats as above/* >>>> >>>> *//* >>>> >>>> Perhaps more important, the Brazil meeting welcomes statements of any >>>> kind as input to its conference, directly without passing through >>>> 1net, by the beginning of March. 1net is not in any way transmitting >>>> or filtering this input (nor should it). >>>> >>>> */[MG>] again I agree but 1Net is looking to take for itself a >>>> substantive and significant role as “Summarizing” and “framing through >>>> Forums” certain inputs into this process and it is in this that I am >>>> suggesting the requirement for transparency /* >>>> >>>> All stakeholder groups are in this together. We want an Internet that >>>> is stable, secure, and not subject to undue influence, intimidation or >>>> outright capture by any sectoral interest. >>>> >>>> */[MG>] and again I agree but that puts an additional onus on the >>>> process to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability >>>> within stakeholder groups (which was not evident within the CS >>>> stakeholder group for example) and within the stakeholder >>>> collaboration processes (such as 1Net) themselves. /* >>>> >>>> *//* >>>> >>>> */As well we must not fail to recognize that some stakeholder groups >>>> start off in the process with more influence and resources than others >>>> and thus (to go back to Anne’s question where all of this started) >>>> among the greatest tools to ensure against such “capture by any >>>> sectoral interest” is full transparency and accountability through >>>> appropriate and inclusive structures—which is what I would think we >>>> would all be striving for. /* >>>> >>>> *//* >>>> >>>> We will not get there unless we can converge on broadly acceptable >>>> collations, and we won’t get those solutions unless we come up with >>>> good ideas and discuss/debate them. >>>> >>>> */[MG>] agreed/* >>>> >>>> *//* >>>> >>>> Negativity really does’;t help. >>>> >>>> */[MG>] agreed but nor does ignoring reasonable requests for >>>> reasonable disclosure/transparency. This only leads to further >>>> distrust and an undermining of these necessary processes that you are >>>> pointing to./* >>>> >>>> *//* >>>> >>>> We have an agora, 1net, that appears to offer an arena for that. >>>> Can't we just use it and concentrate upon ideas? >>>> >>>> */[MG>] yes, but in order to accept 1Net as an agora it is necessary >>>> to ensure that it is not, as the “agora*” started out i.e. a place >>>> where “/*free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in >>>> the agora for military duty or to hear statements of the ruling king >>>> or council” */but rather is, as it later became,/* “a marketplace >>>> where merchants kept stalls or shops to sell their goods */(MG: “and >>>> ideas”) and the best way to ensure that the agora is the latter and >>>> not the former, is full transparency as to processes and inputs. /* >>>> >>>> *//* >>>> >>>> */And again I can see no reason why this response should come from you >>>> who is as you say “/* not one of the directly responsible parties for >>>> 1net” */and not from 1Net itself, who could as I’ve said repeatedly >>>> end this discussion once and for all by spending no more than one or >>>> two hours in responding to a set of questions which any “public” and >>>> publically accountable process would find completely normal and >>>> acceptable. The failure to do so, (wearing my auditor’s hat) suggests >>>> that perhaps there is something to hide which the responsible parties >>>> are unwilling to disclose./* >>>> >>>> */Mike/* >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>>> */*/* */http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora/* >>>> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, michael gurstein >>> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> > I must admit to finding it quite bizarre to see folks on the one >>>> hand extolling the necessity for Transparency in the abstract while >>>> declaiming on the possibility of “capture”, and then refusing to >>>> support its application in the concrete; talking about the application >>>> of Transparency to multistakeholder processes in the sky by and by and >>>> not supporting it when it is suggested for an immediate and >>>> significant application and one moreover which is impacting on current >>>> CS activities and outputs. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a >>>> formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and >>>> the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes >>>> including in the crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures >>>> and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. This is the absolute >>>> minimum that would be expected from any public body or agency. And >>>> certainly it would appear that many of the folks in this discussion >>>> not only are seeing MS structures such as 1Net as supplemental public >>>> bodies, they are seeing them as central public bodies in the Internet >>>> public policy space. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Insisting that the responsible parties in 1Net spend the hour or two >>>> required to provide a public accounting of their actions, resources >>>> and procedures would provide an opportunity to clear the air and to >>>> assure all and sundry that no elements of corporate or other capture >>>> have been involved or are inserted into the structures that have been >>>> provided for framing the on-going discussion. Or perhaps are those >>>> opposing this absolutely minimum measure afraid of what might be >>>> revealed. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > It is surely worthy of note that none of those on the 1Net Steering >>>> Committee have as yet provided comment on this discussion as for >>>> example, by giving instances of how they were consulted in the >>>> contracting of the “Summary” and the design of the “Forums” and the >>>> “Forums website”. This would go some way in providing assurance of at >>>> least a certain degree of internal transparency. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > If something as simple and straightforward as this is so fiercely >>>> resisted by certain CS and other parties, what possible assurance is >>>> there that there will be any effective oversight or overwhelming >>>> insistence on Transparency and Accountability for the more elaborate >>>> and complex MS processes which are so widely and loudly being touted >>>> by one and all and including so many involved in this discussion. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > M >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> <> >>>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Feb 10 15:33:27 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:03:27 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG In-Reply-To: <029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <029a01cf248f$0a9f5090$1fddf1b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael, 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. 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. 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. 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. Best, Anja On 8 February 2014 11:01, michael gurstein wrote: > Anja, > > > > 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). > > > > M > > > > *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > *Sent:* Friday, February 07, 2014 5:10 PM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Anne Jellema; IGC; Mike Godwin; Gene Kimmelman; Jeremy Malcolm; <, > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > > > > Hi Michael, > > Since your message came specifically in response to one I had sent > earlier, I felt compelled to respond directly. > > 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) "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" 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. > > 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). > > 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. > > All the best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > On 7 February 2014 19:03, michael gurstein wrote: > > 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... > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 *whatever it > takes* 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. > > > > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple common > sense. > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been telling us? > > > > M > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs > *Sent:* Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > *To:* Anne Jellema > *Cc:* Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); genekimmelman at gmail.com; > jeremy at ciroap.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > Dear all, > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few comments > below: > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema wrote: > > /SNIP/ > > 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?! > > > > 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: > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Best, > Anja > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Marilia Maciel* > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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... > > > > - 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: > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > 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? > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to > MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > 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). > > 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? > > 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 > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we > can continue the discussions. > > Thanks again for the good start > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > > > *From: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" > *Reply-To: *"genekimmelman at gmail.com" > *Date: *Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM > *To: *"jeremy at ciroap.org" , " > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > > > 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. ... > > > > The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the Baku > best bits meeting > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Three examples might be: > > 1. Net neutrality > > 2. Protection for personal privacy > > 3. Affordable access > > 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. > > > > I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement for > this in a two day conference > > > 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. > > 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. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > Click hereto report this email as spam. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > > Anne Jellema > > Chief Executive Officer > > Cape Town, RSA > mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9352 > > tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585 > > tel (US) +1 202 684 6885 > > Skype anne.jellema > > @afjellema > > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | > www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Feb 10 15:50:10 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:20:10 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: RSVP - discussion of governance mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG) In-Reply-To: <20140209200812.40d02420@quill> References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <20140209200812.40d02420@quill> Message-ID: I agree with much of what Ian and Avri had to say. The reason I am still putting my bet on exploring multistakeholderism in greater detail is because, as I have mentioned before, the defining differences here are that civil society in that system would also be guaranteed a place around the table if it so desired (i.e. corporations wouldn't be the only ones), and that governments would have to account for what they do with the inputs provided, rather than those inputs just disappearing into what sometimes seems like a black box. If we can make those things stick, I think that is a major gain for people's democracy, not a loss. Corporate power is not the only obstacle in the way of such a vision succeeding though. It also requires a new kind of organising among civil society, including by working through and addressing the very real power imbalances within civil society. That is our responsibility. Whether or not we'll be able to step up to the challenge is a wait and see, but I for one would like us to try. Anja On 10 February 2014 00:38, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Ian Peter wrote: > > > Not sure we need yet another mailing list for this > > I'm not sure of that either, but it still seems to me a significantly > better and more transparent approach than the alternatives that I have > considered, given that I want to be able to invite people who won't > necessarily want to receive all the various other messages that get > posted on the IGC and BestBits lists. > > Hence: http://digital-age.info/mailman/listinfo/robustgov > > Let me emphasize that this new list is a topically narrow list to > address specifically issues around robustness of governance mechanisms > against capture and other forms of undue influence by special > interests. It is *not* a general list for Internet governance related > discussions, we definitely have enough of those (and a bad enough > crossposting problem) already. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > I'm strongly in agreement with Michael that we absolutely need for > > the design and discussion of governance mechanisms to strongly > > take these realities of particular interests (which are often in > > conflict with the public interest) explicitly into consideration. > > > > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 whatever it takes 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > This isn't paranoia or USA or whatever bashing. This is simple > > > common sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > Has no one here heard of Mr. Snowden and what he has been > > > telling us? > > > > > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja > > > Kovacs Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 6:43 AM > > > To: Anne Jellema > > > Cc: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG); > > > genekimmelman at gmail.com; jeremy at ciroap.org; > > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive > > > proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I've been following this conversation with great interest. A few > > > comments below: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 February 2014 03:10, Anne Jellema > > > wrote: > > > > > > /SNIP/ > > > > > > 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?! > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised > > > -democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/). > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Best, > > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Marilia Maciel > > > Date: 23 January 2014 03:48 > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit > > > - IG governance > > > To: Andrew Puddephatt > > > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew and all, > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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... > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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: > > > > > > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back > > > to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and > > > hoping we can continue the discussions. > > > > > > Thanks again for the good start > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Mike Godwin > > > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Feb 10 15:59:25 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:59:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: <52F87CB9.1080309@itforchange.net> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> <52F87CB9.1080309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52F93DAD.4000107@softwarefreedom.org> Although there may be merit in not devoting too much of our energies on something i.e. merely a logistics committee but I can't help wondering and agreeing with Parminder, considering the enthusiasm some of the corporations are displaying in getting their own representatives, the astroturfers on the 1Net. On 02/10/2014 02:16 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 10 February 2014 12:23 PM, David Cake wrote: >> >> On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein > > wrote: >>> Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a >>> formation that was interposed and interposed itself between “CS” and >>> the Brazil meeting, make transparent its decision making processes >>> including in the crucial areas of financial supports and >>> expenditures and decisions as to inclusions and exclusions. >> >> I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency and >> accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a >> positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much >> larger amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, >> which at this point is largely a mechanism for dealing with >> administrative issues to do with a single event, rather than >> focussing on the substantive policy outcomes of that, and future, >> events. > > This is untrue on both counts. The fact being as below; > > (1) The primary purpose of the 1Net is to strongly influence (if not > actually write) the outcomes of the Brazil meeting (something I have > been insisting since the very beginning) > > (2) The serious 1Net-ers want it to be a standing multistakeholder > mechanism. So many have explicitly said so on so many lists. > > I think one-sided naivete is not the best response for civil society > to take to all this, which unfortunately seems to be the dominant > response. (I say one-sided naivete becuase there is hardly any naivete > when for instance a UN kind of process is involved.) > > People in post colonial societies cannot but use colonial analogies to > understand geo- political situations. The British set up an > establishment in India 'merely' to facilitate its trade to 'the east'. > They ended up ruling the country for more than a century. Apologies if > the analogy is seen as 'too strong' - it is merely to underline the > need for political foresight... > > parminder > > > > > >> Regards >> >> David >> > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Feb 10 16:53:04 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:53:04 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] U.S. submission to the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Message-ID: Please find attached the U.S. submission to the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy (CWG-Internet), which addresses the role of governments in a variety of policy areas. This was made public today. The next meeting the CWG-Internet will be held in Geneva, March 3-4. *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Response to 3rd Meeting of CWG-Internet_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 413052 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Feb 10 17:01:11 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 03:31:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process for 1Net In-Reply-To: <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com> References: <044801cf25e4$9c395d10$d4ac1730$@gmail.com> <965DB481-C761-4A4D-A932-B0FCF4BBBF37@difference.com.au> <062201cf2639$1ea5d6d0$5bf18470$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Michael and all, Regarding the summary and forum/website, I am happy to find out more about how they were financed. I can share with you already that both were shared with the 1net SC before they were shared with the larger list. To my knowledge there was little involvement of the SC in their conceptualisation until after their launch. The SC has since been making suggestions on how to improve both, and this is being worked on now (for example, there have been requests by many to try and provide functionality that would allow a user to interact with the forum completely through email, in which case for that particular user the experience would actually not be very different than it is now). I foresee that these will continue to evolve over the weeks to come. Hope this is helpful, and I'll get back to you as soon as I find out more. Best, Anja On 10 February 2014 13:51, michael gurstein wrote: > A simple detailed reply (1-2 hours max) to my initial request would be > more than sufficient to stem any further debate on the internal functioning > of 1Net (certainly by myself). > > > > My question is why those who have wasted far more of their (and my time) > in arguing that such is unnecessary are not directing their efforts toward > 1Net to have them stop this discussion immediately through a useful > response. > > > > M > > > > *From:* David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] > *Sent:* Monday, February 10, 2014 6:54 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Ian Peter; genekimmelman at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for Transparency Process > for 1Net > > > > > > On 10 Feb 2014, at 6:16 am, michael gurstein wrote: > > Precisely what are people afraid of in insisting that 1Net, a formation > that was interposed and interposed itself between "CS" and the Brazil > meeting, make transparent its decision making processes including in the > crucial areas of financial supports and expenditures and decisions as to > inclusions and exclusions. > > > > I am not afraid at all of 1Net increasing its transparency > and accountability mechanisms - on the contrary, that would clearly be a > positive outcome. But I am quite afraid that we will spend a much larger > amount of time debating the internal functioning of 1net, which at this > point is largely a mechanism for dealing with administrative issues to do > with a single event, rather than focussing on the substantive policy > outcomes of that, and future, events. > > Regards > > > > David > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Feb 10 17:57:10 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:57:10 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update: Letter to co-facilitators of WSIS+10 negotiations Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks to all who have endorsed this letter already. A quick update here- I've been in touch with some missions in NY and I have a meeting confirmed with one of the co-facilitators for Friday, so I'll plan on delivering the letter in person. For those who are still considering signing on, can you please do so by *Thursday, 13 February*(end of day EST), so that I can print it ahead of the meeting? Here's the link again: http://bestbits.net/wsis10-modalities/ Also, for those interested in working on the WSIS review further, I'm wondering if we might form a fluid working group, like the various workstreams that have been set up for the Brazil meeting. It would be good to dive into the substance of what we would want the overall WSIS review to achieve. I will follow up with a separate email this week with some initial thoughts. All the best, Deborah On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > The letter to the co-facilitators of negotiations on the overall WSIS+10 > review is now posted for sign on: http://bestbits.net/wsis10-modalities/ > > Thanks to all who sent feedback. I tried to incorporate all edits as much > as possible. > > Please add your endorsement *by Monday, 10 February*. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > *Letter to co-facilitators calling for civil society input into > negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities* > > February 4, 2014 > > H.E. Mr. Mohamed Khaled Khiari > Permanent Mission of Tunisia to the United Nations > 31 Beekman Place > New York, N.Y. 10022 > > H.E. Mr. Jarmo Viinanen > Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations > 866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 222 > New York, N.Y. 10017 > > Your Excellencies, > > We, the undersigned, are writing as members of civil society deeply > engaged in Internet governance and ICT for development issues. Many of us > have been engaged in this field since the inception of World Summit on the > Information Society (WSIS). > > At the outset, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as > co-facilitators of the General Assembly's open intergovernmental > consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall review of the > implementation of the outcomes of WSIS. > > We feel strongly that all stages of the overall WSIS review process should > be open to all interested stakeholders. As members of global civil society, > we have been contributing to the WSIS review process that is currently > underway and would welcome the opportunity to input into the informal > consultations you are facilitating and serve as resources in these > processes. > > The modalities for the overall review must embody the spirit of WSIS and > take into account the progress and growing recognition of the importance of > multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance that has been made > since 2005, as exemplified by the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for > the WSIS High Level Event and the UNESCO WSIS+10 Review Event, but also the > Internet Governance Forum, the Working Group on Internet Governance, the > Working Group on IGF improvements, and the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation. > > We envision an overall WSIS review that renews and revives commitment to > the Geneva principles' vision of a "people-centred, inclusive, > development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society", is rooted > in the international human rights framework, and builds on the achievements > and addresses the challenges experienced in the 10 years since WSIS. > > Additionally, we would welcome efforts to find synergies and > synchronicities between the overall WSIS review and the post-2015 > development agenda, and in this context we would encourage the development > of more concrete, measurable targets relating to ICTs and development. > > To conclude, we, the undersigned, consider it critical that the modalities > of the overall WSIS review take into account the viewpoints of all > stakeholders and establish concrete mechanisms for civil society to channel > its contributions, including through remote participation. Therefore, we, > as members of global civil society, would like to request an opportunity to > input into the informal consultations that you are facilitating and as well > as to engage more formally in the preparatory process to the overall > review. > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Feb 26 21:13:00 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:13:00 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] The love-hate relationship between the Internet technical community and civil society Message-ID: Here's the abstract of a a fun lightning talk that I'l be giving at APRICOT 2014 today. Recognise these stereotypes? To techies, "civil society" is a useless concept, referring to a bunch of failed career politicians who lack a basic understanding of the technology behind the Internet, have no legitimacy to represent Internet users, and litter their conversation with stupid acronyms like "WSIS", "MDGs" and "LDCs". To civil society, the technical community are a bunch of narrow-minded libertarian geeks, who can't (or refuse to) understand the policy dimensions of technology, or how it is shaped by power and money, and who litter their conversation with stupid acronyms like "BGP", "MPLS" and "DNSSEC". However, the future of the Internet depends on the two sides learning to get along. Both need to recognise their own limitations, and the value of what the other side has to contribute. Civil society and the technical community may hate each other sometimes, but could they really be a perfect match? Watch this lightning presentation live at http://apnic.adobeconnect.com/apricot2014-room1/ from 2pm local Malaysian time. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 28 00:30:12 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:30:12 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] attend NETmundial - Expression of interest deadline Feb 28 Message-ID: <9D0D0CDD-1C44-4D1E-BBDE-CB009677AF78@glocom.ac.jp> February 28 is the deadline for submitting an expression of interest to attend the NETmundial meeting "The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance". The form is easy to complete: name, email address, organization, country/region, stakeholder group and sector. Plus a short (around 100 word) comment on why you would like to attend, what you will contribute. Acceptance of registrations will be made public by March 15. The deadline for submitting written contributions to Netmundial has been extended to March 8. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges participants to submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the production on the synthesis document. Thanks, Adam From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Feb 27 10:57:38 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:57:38 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Pre-registration Net Mundial closing 28/02 Message-ID: Dear all, This is just a quick reminder that *pre-registrations* for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial) *will close tomorrow (28/02).* Please register if you plan to attend: http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression Acceptance of registrations will be made public by 15/03. The deadline for presenting *written contributions* to Net Mundial has been extended to *08/03*. Nevertheless, the Secretariat urges participants to submit contributions as early as possible to facilitate the production on the synthesis document. Best wishes, Marilia -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ceo at bnnrc.net Wed Feb 26 02:46:12 2014 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:46:12 +0600 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Contributions for NETmundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, In Bangladesh we have already started to develop People's Charter on Internet Governance with the participation from different stakeholder. We would like to finalization of * People's Charter on Internet Governance in Bangladesh *by December 2014. Then we would like submit to the Prime Minister of Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh for implementation. Now we are working on Road to Brazil, Regarding R2 Brazil we will organise Pre- Consultation in Bangladesh. We solicit your cooperation. With solidarity, *Bazlu* ________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|* Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) *[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]* House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|* Bangladesh*|* Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr cbd at gmail.com *|* www.bnnrc.ne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Feb 28 07:38:24 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:38:24 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial update Message-ID: <90759931-8B0B-48CC-ABD1-5D4FAE284D2B@glocom.ac.jp> Report of the last NETmundial EMC meeting online, been there for a few days, apologies for forgetting to mention. attached and at 595 expressions of interest received as of the morning of Feb 27, Brazil (day to go). Most from Latin America and Caribbean 38%. 19% N America, 17% Europe, 12% Asia, 10% Africa, 3% Oceania. Private sector 28%, civil society 25, government 16%, academia 13%, technical community 11%, other 8% 8 contributions online so far Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EMC-meeting-report_2002_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 101142 bytes Desc: not available URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Feb 27 22:02:01 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:02:01 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] FYI RightsCon program- internet governance sessions Message-ID: Dear all, RightsCon Silicon Valley starts on Monday, 3 March and I wanted to highlight a few sessions on internet governance for those of you who are planning to participate in person or remotely. The full program is available here. I will send out more details on remote participation soon. *Internet Governance Basics : What's at stake in 2014? * *March 3 @ 3:30-4:45 PST/GMT -8* 2014 is shaping up to be an important year in Internet Governance. Not only is the question of who runs the Internet becoming headline news, but the diplomatic calendar is full of occasions for governments to demand more control. Add to this mix next month's Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil, plus a number of high level panels seeking a new, middle path and you have a recipe for either a new paradigm for global cooperation - or a politically fragmented Internet. We'll hear from a range of people steeped in the internet governance debate and explain what's up for grabs, who is to be impacted, what are the current models being proposed - and most importantly why this matters to Silicon Valley. 1. All speakers will do on intro on their key issues and trends, and engage the audience in a discussion as to why this is important. 2. Communicating what's good and bad about the present model exploring new transnational mechanisms for Internet Governance; looking at "Splinternets" on the horizon and its impact on business; Geopolitical pressures and responses 3. Why 2014 is the year to get involved. Why you should and how you can do it? Speakers: - Bertrand De La Chapelle (Internet Jurisdiction, France) - Anja Kovacs (Internet Democracy Project, India) - Nnenna Nwakanma - (Web Foundation, Cote d'Ivoire) - Ronaldo Lemos - (Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade, Brazil) - Chris Riley (Mozilla, USA) TBC Moderator: Chris Mondini (ICANN) *"São Paulo and Beyond: the Future of Global Internet Governance" * *March 5 @ 12-1:15pm PST/GMT -8* This session will bring together a mix of experts involved in global internet governance policy spaces to help bring greater clarity around Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial) and where internet governance will go after it. This dynamic panel will aim to clarify misconceptions about the event, what's at stake, and what internet governance might look like in the next 20 years. It will bring together academics, advocates, government, and the private sector for a dynamic conversation with the broader digital rights community. - Joana Varon (FGV/CTS) - Anja Kovacs (Internet Democracy Project) - Johan Hallenborg (Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs) - Ben Wagner (Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania) - Patrick Ryan (Google) Moderator: Deborah Brown (Access) *São Paulo Civil Society Strategy session* *March 3 @ 9am-12pm PST/GMT -8* This is a civil society strategizing session* ahead of the Net Mundial meeting and other upcoming internet governance events on Some ideas for an agenda - Finalizing contributions for the Net Mundial meeting - Building consensus between various contributions - Strategizing on ways to build support for CS position among other stakeholders - Brainstorming on media strategy, guiding the narrative on how this event is covered - Input on the agenda for the preparatory civil society meeting in São Paulo, and delivering a message to that meeting on behalf of those who won't be there - Looking beyond São Paulo, more precisely 2015+ *Note: This is not part of the official programming, so please reach out to me directly if you would like to participate in this session in person or remotely. -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Feb 27 19:34:24 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:34:24 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] thoughts welcome on proposed netmundial submission Message-ID: Below are some words I have prepared to submit to NetMundial (acting purely as an individual) before the March 8 deadline. I have copied them to a couple of lists because I know others think similarly – and I am more than prepared to amend this and transform it into a sign-on statement if there is interest. I acknowledge firstly inputs from others on various lists discussing this which I have adopted. If people are interested in contributing and signing on, happy to take that on board on list or off list. But I do want a pragmatic proposal which has a good chance of being adopted, and will not include suggestions that would be counter to getting some immediate action on this. I appreciate there are many other thoughts on this and encourage others to make submissions direct to Netmundial outlining other solutions if they feel so inclined. But any inputs to refine this particular widely discussed suggestion are very welcome. This will have to be finalised for sign on, if that direction is taken, by about March 4. Ian Peter DRAFT FOLLOWS Roadmap (and principles) for internalisation of the former IANA functions within the multistakeholder ICANN model. This roadmap concentrates on one internet governance issue only – the future of the IANA functions which have been the subject of much past discussion because current arrangements are seen by many to be outside of the preferred multistakeholder model. Indeed, IANA itself was established in an era before current internet governance models (multistakeholder) and governance institutions (eg ICANN) were in existence. ROADMAP This roadmap suggests that the IANA functions, though necessary processes in the secure and authoritative functioning of the Internet, no longer need a separate entity and would more productively merged with similar functions under the auspices of ICANN. Subject of course to many concerns about details, this direction appears to have widespread support from governments, civil society, technical community, and private sector. In order to achieve this desired change efficiently and productively, the following roadmap is proposed. 1. ICANN should be requested to prepare a proposal for management of the previous IANA functions within the ICANN multistakeholder model, bearing in mind the following criteria: (a) protection of the root zone from political or other improper interference; (b) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of the administration of the root zone; (c) widespread [international] trust by Internet users in the administration of this function; (d) support of a single unified root zone; and (e) agreement regarding an accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted as being in the global public interest." 2. Preparation of the proposal should involve discussion with all major stakeholder groups, with a completion timetable for a first draft for discussion at the Internet Governance Forum in Turkey in September 2014. 3. To expedite completion in a timely manner, it is suggested that outside consultants be engaged to prepare the discussion paper (proposal) in consultation with major stakeholders. 4. The solution must have the following characteristics (a) offers a legal structure that is robust against rogue litigation attacks (b) is aligned with the Internet technical infrastructure in a way that supports innovative, technology based evolution of the DNS . (c) is an inclusive model (d) is a demonstrable improvement on current processes in this area END DRAFT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: