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

[Akinremi Peter Taiwo]

Good structured, demand great attention and cogent answers.
On Dec 3, 2014 8:41 PM, "Vanda Scartezini" <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:

> Hi Deirdre
>
>  For me the letter is good. Touches all  key points.
> Kisses
> *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 *
> *So**rry 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
> Mundial
> To: "LatinoamerICANN" <latinoamericann at dgroups.org>
> Cc:
>
> FYI
>
> 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/
>
>
> 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) community’s most respected organizations
> such as the Internet Society (ISOC), regarding the inconsistencies between
> NMI’s 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,
> “embrace the NETmundial Principles” and, “sign your name as a public
> advocate of NETmundial Principles.” However, the NETmundial Principles are
> a set of “non-binding statements” 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 NMI’s 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, “if representing an organization, the
> nominee must confirm that their organization will officially embrace the
> NETmundial Principles”, 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 “non-binding” 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 NMI’s 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 communities’ 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 “crowdsourcing
> of enablers and solutions from the global community.” 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 “approved positions”, 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 “crowd-funding to finance/support
> the development and implementation of such enablers and solutions.” Again,
> some of the stakeholders, especially the private sector and likely some
> governments, are not allowed to engage in “fundraising” or “crowd-funding”
> 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 “non-binding
> outcome”, the NETmundial list of potential “solutions” includes,
> “regulations, directives, contracts and/or other agreements”.
> (i)    How does NMI plan to reconcile the contradiction that arises
> between the basic “non-binding” characteristic of the NETmundial Principles
> and the range of solutions articulated by the NMI?
>
>
> 10.  The NMI has pre-identified “issues ranging from cyber security to
> user privacy” as those which need to be addressed “urgently”.  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 “solutions” listed on the NMI website, some, such as
> “regulations”, 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/>’s 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 UN’s 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 stakeholders’
> 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 participants’
> energy is diverted from capacity and consensus-building to drafting
> negotiated outcomes.
>
>
> ICC BASIS is concerned about the business community’s ability to
> participate meaningfully in any initiative which has pre-defined criteria
> for nomination and objectives as outputs. We are also concerned about the
> NMI’s 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 <eiriarte at alfa-redi.org> | Unsubscribe
> <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: 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141204/f4d6c23d/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:
     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