[governance] Fwd: [latinoamericann] Fwd: [discuss] ICC BASIS letter to NMI - Net Mundial

Vanda Scartezini vanda at uol.com.br
Wed Dec 3 14:40:08 EST 2014

Hi Deirdre

 For me the letter is good. Touches all  key points.
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.

From:  "williams.deirdre at gmail.com" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Reply-To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
"williams.deirdre at gmail.com" <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Date:  Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 15:21
To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject:  [governance] Fwd: [latinoamericann] Fwd: [discuss] ICC BASIS
letter to NMI - Net Mundial

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Erick Iriarte Ahon" <eiriarte at alfa-redi.org>
Date: 3 Dec 2014 12:50
Subject: [latinoamericann] Fwd: [discuss] ICC BASIS letter to NMI  - Net
To: "LatinoamerICANN" <latinoamericann at dgroups.org>


> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
> De: WEISE Constance <constance.weise at iccwbo.org>
> Para: "discuss at 1net.org" <discuss at 1net.org>
> Fecha: 3 de diciembre de 2014, 11:06:15 GMT-5
> Asunto: [discuss] ICC BASIS letter to NMI
> Please see below the letter from ICC BASIS that was sent to the NETmundial
> Initiative Transitional Committee, accessible at:
> http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Documents/Basis/Internet-governance/2014/ICC-BASIS-
> questions-submitted-to-NETmundial-Initiative-Transitional-Committee/
> <http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Documents/Basis/Internet-governance/2014/ICC-BASIS
> -questions-submitted-to-NETmundial-Initiative-Transitional-Committee/>
> We are looking forward to the responses to these questions and hope that they
> might be shared widely with the community of stakeholders.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> To:
> NETmundial Initiative Transitional Committee:
> Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida
> Secretary for Information Technology Policy for the Ministry of Science,
> Technology and Innovation of Brazil
> Fadi Chehadé
> President And Chief Executive Officer Of ICANN
> Richard Samans
> Managing Director and Member of the Managing Board, World Economic Forum
> 28 November 2014
> ICC BASIS writes in response to the NETmundial Initiative (NMI) announcement
> on 6 November 2014. NMI, ICC BASIS members agree with the conveners of the
> NETMundial Initiative (NMI) that there is a need to work together in a
> collaborative fashion toward developing solutions for pressing Internet
> Governance issues. However, ICC BASIS has concerns as to how this relatively
> new initiative will feed into already existing efforts.
> To begin, we feel strongly that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is the
> appropriate forum for the exchange ideas and information, which in turn raises
> awareness and drives toward consensus and progress on Internet Governance
> issues.  The bottom-up process for planning, executing, and participating in
> the IGF reflects the core tenets of the multistakeholder model. There has also
> been significant commentary online, including by some of the Internet
> governance (IG) community¹s most respected organizations such as the Internet
> Society (ISOC), regarding the inconsistencies between NMI¹s processes and
> those that are generally regarded as important for a multistakeholder,
> bottom-up, decentralized, open, transparent, and accountable selection and
> discussion format ICC BASIS agrees with many of the views expressed.
> Based on the information available to date ICC BASIS members oppose the NMI as
> established, conceived, and structured. The process that has led to the
> establishment and structure of the NMI was not multistakeholder in that the
> creation and scope of the NMI appears to be largely conceived through closed
> conversations with only a few stakeholders present. Our members also have
> serious concerns with the lack of clarity regarding the rules of procedure for
> the actual work of the NMI.  With this in mind, ICC BASIS shares the views of
> ISOC and other stakeholders and cannot endorse the NMI resulting from this
> process of formation or current form and structure.
> Having said that ICC BASIS members understand that there is a pressing need to
> address real concerns related to global Internet governance and as such we
> continue to discuss how best to advance the continued effectiveness of the IGF
> and other Internet governance organizations more broadly.
> In order to ascertain whether NMI could be a forum that addresses such
> concerns, we have read through the FAQs, which NMI recently posted online.
> After doing so, we continue to have questions and requests for clarification.
> Therefore, we seek answers to the questions below and call for more time to be
> allowed for such questions to be explored and any subsequent follow up that
> the responses may require.
> Formation and Governance
> 1.    How long is the NMI expected to last?
> 2.    NMI decided to pre-allocate five seats on the Coordination Council (CC),
> one each to the Brazilian Internet Steering committee (CGI.br <http://cgi.br/>
> ), World Economic Forum (WEF), Internet Cooperation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (ICANN), IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and I*
> Organizations.
> (i)    What was the process that led to this decision and was there any
> discussion or consultation more broadly in this regard?
> (ii)   Are these seats expected to be permanent, or subject to rotation, and
> what is the process / duration thereof?
> (iii)  Will their roles or obligations be different from the rest of the 20
> members on the proposed CC?
> 3.    The pre-conditions for being nominated to the NMI CC include, ³embrace
> the NETmundial Principles² and, ³sign your name as a public advocate of
> NETmundial Principles.² However, the NETmundial Principles are a set of
> ³non-binding statements² that, in spite of being well regarded, may or may not
> be acceptable to individuals, organizations, or governments in their entirety,
> or in part.  Furthermore, both government and industry stakeholders may be
> limited in their ability to sign on to such documents because of the legal
> approval processes in their organizations.
> (i)    Does the pre-condition mean that those who either do not agree with the
> Principles, or agree with them only partially, will not be allowed to
> participate in the NETmundial Initiative?
> (ii)   What if such organizations or governments have a significant role to
> play in meeting NMI¹s stated objectives? Will they be prohibited from
> participating?
> 4.    Each member of the business community represents an entire business
> organization - in some cases publicly held companies. In such cases, if the CC
> selection criteria, which state, ³if representing an organization, the nominee
> must confirm that their organization will officially embrace the NETmundial
> Principles², is to be met, it could have serious, legal and wide-ranging
> implications on the nominee and their organization. Further, this is at odds
> with the ³non-binding² character of NETmundial Principles.  Practically
> speaking, such a pre-condition could render business membership out of
> reckoning as a CC nominee. This could also be true for governments as well as
> other stakeholders.
> (i)    Has such a consequence been anticipated? What is NMI¹s response to this
> issue, which has severe implications on nominees from the private sector, and
> by consequence, the constitution of a multistakeholder CC?
> 5.    The nomination process is unclear. If the intent is to have broad
> representation of stakeholder interests, then one would assume a similar
> process of self-organization that happened in the lead-up to NETmundial would
> be utilized. 
> (i)    How is this self-nomination process going to provide any assurance of
> breadth of representation in terms of the broad communities¹ interest beyond
> the viewpoints of five individuals?
> Objectives
> 6.    If NMI is be a true multistakeholder initiative, it seems
> counterintuitive that many topics related to the range of possible outcomes
> and issues to be discussed have been decided without any credible
> multistakeholder consultation.
> (i)    Should what has been suggested so far merely be considered a draft
> proposal?
> (ii)   Can NMI clarify the source and nature of the inputs?
> 7.    One of the objectives defined under NMI relates to ³crowdsourcing of
> enablers and solutions from the global community.² While this certainly seems
> like an innovative idea, there are serious constraints on stakeholders such as
> the private sector, and to a large extent, governments, who are only allowed
> to submit ³approved positions², which in turn require substantive time and
> internal approval processes. This would leave the private sector as well as
> other stakeholders at a serious disadvantage to engage meaningfully in NMI.
> (i)    How does NMI plan to address the different pace and processes followed
> amongst multistakeholder groups, when requiring formal submissions?
> 8.    The second NMI objective requires ³crowd-funding to finance/support the
> development and implementation of such enablers and solutions.² Again, some of
> the stakeholders, especially the private sector and likely some governments,
> are not allowed to engage in ³fundraising² or ³crowd-funding² activities as a
> part of their corporate discipline, ethics, or terms of employment.
> (i)    How would all stakeholders participate meaningfully in this objective?
> 9.    Even though the NETmundial Principles were framed as a ³non-binding
> outcome², the NETmundial list of potential ³solutions² includes, ³regulations,
> directives, contracts and/or other agreements².
> (i)    How does NMI plan to reconcile the contradiction that arises between
> the basic ³non-binding² characteristic of the NETmundial Principles and the
> range of solutions articulated by the NMI?
> 10.  The NMI has pre-identified ³issues ranging from cyber security to user
> privacy² as those which need to be addressed ³urgently².  Other issues,
> including providing access to the remaining four billion citizens ­ have also
> been identified as issues that need to be addressed under the NETmundial
> Principles and in other forums where Internet governance is discussed.
> (i)    What consultation has occurred to reach a conclusion on priorities?
> 11.  Assuming that a set of issues were identified that require further
> attention, it is entirely possible that the organizers decide which issues CC
> members will bring different views on the mechanisms to address respective
> issues. 
> (i)    How would these issues be reconciled within the NMI procedure?
> (ii)   Will the decision of the 25 Council members be final, or will observers
> be allowed to intervene in the discussions?
> (iii)  How will decisions be reached ­ by vote, by consensus?
> 12.  Amongst the ³solutions² listed on the NMI website, some, such as
> ³regulations², etc., will require buy-in by governments and international
> forums for implementation.
> (i)    How will the 25 CC members ensure such implementation?
> (ii)   What will be the source for funding such an effort, and how will such
> an effort become self-sustaining?
> Relationship to other organizations and initiatives
> 13.  The United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development
> (CSTD) Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, 43 Working Group members
> consisting of governments, international organizations, civil society, private
> sector, and technical community, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Peter Major,
> has been working to map Internet governance issues and matching mechanisms. It
> seems the NMI expects to do much of the same.
> 14.  How would the NMI work differ from the CSTD effort and avoid duplication?
> The existing Internet Governance ecosystem includes specific organizations and
> forums including ISOC, IETF, the IAB, ICANN, IGF, the WSIS process and more.
> (i)    How will the NMI work with other organizations that are actively
> considering the Internet governance issues?
> (ii)   Will formal relationships be established to coordinate and leverage the
> different work initiatives, or is it assumed that those with seats on the CC
> will also be responsible for this coordination?
> 15.  The NETmundial Outcome Statement recognized the need for strengthening
> the IGF and noted the recommendations of the CSTD working group on IGF
> Improvements.
> (i)    How will NMI contribute to accelerating implementation of the
> recommended IGF improvements?
> (ii)   Does CGI.br <http://cgi.br/> ¹s role as one of the five pre-identified
> CC members result from the fact that Brazil hosted the NETmundial conference
> or is it because they are hosting the next IGF in November 2015?
> (iii)  Would the host for IGF 2016 be replacing CGI.br <http://cgi.br/>  next
> year as has been stated by Mr Virgilio Almeida in his video message on the NMI
> website?
> (iv) Is singling out one of UN¹s 195 member states acceptable to other
> stakeholders?
> Answers to the above questions are required in order for ICC BASIS and other
> stakeholders to have a fulsome debate on NMI. As such, we think it is
> essential to extend the debate into 2015 so as to give the business community
> as well as other stakeholders the time necessary to determine possible next
> steps. 
> ICC BASIS believes that at its very core, the Internet must remain a
> decentralized and distributed system that allows multistakeholder groups to
> participate meaningfully in the identification and resolution of issues by
> leveraging their respective expertise. This multistakeholder engagement
> ensures an ecosystem that invites and facilitates stakeholders¹ participation,
> through publicly defined, transparent, and collaborative initiatives, to
> advance the capability of the Internet to empower people, including those who
> currently remain unconnected to the Internet. Business remains firmly
> committed to supporting the role of the IGF and improving current mechanisms
> within its mandate and current organizing principles ­ namely as a body that
> fosters exchanges that lead to solutions and helps to reach consensus, as
> opposed to a negotiating body where participants¹ energy is diverted from
> capacity and consensus-building to drafting negotiated outcomes.
> ICC BASIS is concerned about the business community¹s ability to participate
> meaningfully in any initiative which has pre-defined criteria for nomination
> and objectives as outputs. We are also concerned about the NMI¹s ability to
> pursue its objectives in the face of such pre-conditions and objections from
> essential stakeholders. There is an absolute need for greater clarity and
> meaningful transparency in decision-making processes and criteria; proposed
> objectives and means of accomplishing them; and anticipated relationships with
> existing bodies like the IGF.  We seek your prompt response to the issues
> above and will come back for any further clarifications that might arise, as
> we continue the discussion within our community.
> Regards,
> Joe Alhadeff
> Chair, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Commission on the Digital
> Economy and Representative of ICC BASIS
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

You are receiving this message because you are a member of the community
LatinoamerICANN <https://dgroups.org/alfa-redi-global/latinoamericann> .

View this contribution on the web site <https://dgroups.org/_/j298v1xw>

A reply to this message will be sent to all members of LatinoamerICANN.

Reply to sender <mailto:eiriarte at alfa-redi.org>  | Unsubscribe
<mailto:leave.latinoamericann at dgroups.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:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141203/60d5213a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:

For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list