[governance] Re: CS dialogue over visions of future eco-system for the governance of Internet

Hartmut Richard Glaser glaser at cgi.br
Thu May 1 19:18:50 EDT 2014


Dear All,

I don't have the final numbers (I am already working on that), but the 
initial agreement was that
*50% of all infrastructure expenses***(hotel rooms, lunch and coffee 
breaks, WiFi, translation in 07
languages, interconnection of hubs, YouTube and streaming for the world) 
*would be supported **
**by CGI.br* (_without__any support from the brazilian government - with 
exception of the free VISAS
for all participants)_ and the other 50% by /1netrelated entities. The 
exception on this agreement
was for the travel support: CGI.br don't contributed nothing for the 
"Travel Fund". This Fund was
supported by international "third parties" and I don't have these numbers.

best

Hartmut Glaser

============================================================
On 01/05/14 19:13, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
> Dear Harmut,
>
> Thanks for that. To avoid any misunderstanding, Netmundial was 
> officially supported by CGI.br <http://CGI.br> and ICANN. Right? Do we 
> have any breakdown? Does CGI.br <http://CGI.br> receive money from the 
> Brazilian government, and/or private corporations and foundations? 
> Correct? Just to have a clear picture.
>
> As you kindly give us an information regarding funding, I am asking 
> these questions just for the record, as my primary intention is to see 
> how we could have a specific dialogue with other CS regarding the 
> different visions of what could be a complete new eco-system for the 
> governance of Internet. What would it be in 2020 let's say. This would 
> not require any specific expenses. That would require willingness, 
> time and openness. But this would not be per say a multistakeholder 
> thing. It would a multiparty CS process. I am curious to see if CS can 
> gain over some common ground. It seems like some CS (see previous 
> emails from Stephanie, Seun) already consider that it would be 
> impossible to do so,
> - as everything is so intertwined with other stakeholders
> - talking to each other in CS would isolate CS from other stakeholders
> - it might upset hosting power, or other stakeholders, that are 
> presently listening to CS. So in order not to lose these friendly 
> ears, CS could avoid looking for a "free word" that could endanger 
> their current cooperation with other stakeholders.
>
> I am trying to keep up with arguments but might still be wrong in my 
> wrapping-up, and therefore happy to be corrected. Happy as well to 
> have more comments and opinions.
>
> I will shortly provide a short state of the current CS visions.
>
> Best to you as well,
>
> JC
> __________________________
>
> Jean-Christophe Nothias
> Editor and head of strategy at GLOBAL_GENEVA
> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
> @jc_nothias
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 1 mai 2014 à 23:36, Hartmut Richard Glaser a écrit :
>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> To avoid any misunderstanding, the financial support in Brazil for 
>> NETmundial was NOT from government, but
>> was from CGI.br <http://CGI.br>, a non-for-profit multistakeholder 
>> entity.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Hartmut Glaser
>>
>> ====================================
>> On 01/05/14 17:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> Exactly!
>>> SP
>>> On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. 
>>>> For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. 
>>>> When you get support of government so well (as exhibited at 
>>>> NetMundial) you can at least leave the event with assurance that 
>>>> your voice was heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin 
>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     The reality that I was referring to is captured in this
>>>>     sentence: *However I think we should remember that civil
>>>>     society without support from others (most especially government
>>>>     and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from
>>>>     reality.*
>>>>     By support, I meant actually cooperation.  IN a
>>>>     multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are
>>>>     other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and
>>>>     figure out what they need from your collective endeavour.  That
>>>>     is what I meant.  Civil Society cannot do this alone.  They
>>>>     will achieve little without partners.  I was actually not
>>>>     referring to financial support, and should have clarified that,
>>>>     my apologies.
>>>>     Kind regards,
>>>>     Stephanie
>>>>
>>>>     On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>>>>     Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks for your answer and interest,
>>>>>
>>>>>     As an independent media editor, I must confess a little
>>>>>     surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying
>>>>>     that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have
>>>>>     of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding?
>>>>>     "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host
>>>>>     in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are
>>>>>     you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for
>>>>>     the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao
>>>>>     Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this
>>>>>     what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS
>>>>>     entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts?
>>>>>     Is this the reality Stephanie refers to?
>>>>>
>>>>>     2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to
>>>>>     endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this
>>>>>     success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved
>>>>>     little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The
>>>>>     outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its
>>>>>     language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be
>>>>>     envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the
>>>>>     danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems?
>>>>>
>>>>>     I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the
>>>>>     time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a
>>>>>     danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about
>>>>>     the reality Stephanie and you are referring to.
>>>>>
>>>>>     JC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>>     +1  A welcome reminder of reality.
>>>>>>     Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>     On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji
>>>>>>     <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of
>>>>>>>     your mail is great. However I think we should remember that
>>>>>>>     civil society without support from others (most especially
>>>>>>>     government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could
>>>>>>>     be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream
>>>>>>>     if it did not receive support from the host.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial
>>>>>>>     and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive
>>>>>>>     improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being
>>>>>>>     independent but rather towards collaborative independence
>>>>>>>     for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Thanks
>>>>>>>     sent from Google nexus 4
>>>>>>>     kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>>>>>>     Journal" <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>>>>>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very
>>>>>>>         uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is
>>>>>>>         understood differently by each participant. Faithful to
>>>>>>>         WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--...
>>>>>>>         1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of
>>>>>>>         these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the
>>>>>>>         many visions - I would not dare speaking about
>>>>>>>         philosophy here, but it should be more of that now.
>>>>>>>         2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not
>>>>>>>         less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat,
>>>>>>>         not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement
>>>>>>>         is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed?
>>>>>>>         3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible
>>>>>>>         agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away
>>>>>>>         from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say
>>>>>>>         that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS
>>>>>>>         division.  from that when we read comments from all over
>>>>>>>         4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the
>>>>>>>         final outcome document : we are beginning to have more
>>>>>>>         details regarding the overall flaw process - from the
>>>>>>>         very beginning.
>>>>>>>         5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015
>>>>>>>         deadline?
>>>>>>>         6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to
>>>>>>>         pursue any serious objective
>>>>>>>         7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some
>>>>>>>         CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in
>>>>>>>         the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot
>>>>>>>         of danger in the process that needs to be addressed.
>>>>>>>         8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial
>>>>>>>         as a mode, when from the very beginning they were
>>>>>>>         critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved.
>>>>>>>         9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final
>>>>>>>         document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or
>>>>>>>         its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global
>>>>>>>         window dressing - open an office here and there, like in
>>>>>>>         the old colonial times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final
>>>>>>>         outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more
>>>>>>>         action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time
>>>>>>>         to fight for having a seat in the different venues where
>>>>>>>         gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS
>>>>>>>         could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could
>>>>>>>         really represent a serious power in the game. It is not
>>>>>>>         the case today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest
>>>>>>>         effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS,
>>>>>>>         coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial,
>>>>>>>         wouldn't the CS come together and find this common
>>>>>>>         ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5
>>>>>>>         eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of
>>>>>>>         what could Internet Governance be. John said there was
>>>>>>>         no alternative to the current governance. He is right to
>>>>>>>         ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a
>>>>>>>         submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from
>>>>>>>         diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully
>>>>>>>         democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A
>>>>>>>         World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World
>>>>>>>         Internet Organization
>>>>>>>         <http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-next-best-stage-for-the-future-of-internet-governance-is-democracy/305> are
>>>>>>>         the natural next steps. An original pair would bring
>>>>>>>         guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial
>>>>>>>         even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to
>>>>>>>         see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or
>>>>>>>         whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic
>>>>>>>         thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market
>>>>>>>         orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight.
>>>>>>>         Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to
>>>>>>>         ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS
>>>>>>>         forces do not confront each other vision of what could
>>>>>>>         be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now.
>>>>>>>         2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially
>>>>>>>         the policy maker of the Internet -  so far it was
>>>>>>>         supposed to care only about naming and addressing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be
>>>>>>>         the CS major concern)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said
>>>>>>>         she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in
>>>>>>>         front of the world), would be welcome. We need a
>>>>>>>         CSMundial for Internet. Now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         JC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Post-scriptum:
>>>>>>>         John,
>>>>>>>         Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative
>>>>>>>         eco-system for the Internet governance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         JC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>>>>>>>>         <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
>>>>>>>>         <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in
>>>>>>>>>         2019? This would help to keep some of the working
>>>>>>>>>         mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a
>>>>>>>>>         perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and
>>>>>>>>>         beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the
>>>>>>>>>         olympics which takes place in a four or five year
>>>>>>>>>         cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in
>>>>>>>>>         between.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same
>>>>>>>>         models
>>>>>>>>         of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a
>>>>>>>>         repeat in 2019 would be wonderful...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize
>>>>>>>>         such
>>>>>>>>         improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to
>>>>>>>>         expect to
>>>>>>>>         maintain any momentum.  If you had said 2015 (and
>>>>>>>>         succeeding
>>>>>>>>         years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in
>>>>>>>>         agreement.  It would seem to me that indicating today
>>>>>>>>         the plan
>>>>>>>>         for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely
>>>>>>>>         hollow out
>>>>>>>>         the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF
>>>>>>>>         reform
>>>>>>>>         that we've just very successfully created.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         /John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         Disclaimer: My views alone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>         <mailto: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
>>>>>>>         <mailto: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
>>>>>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>     /Seun Ojedeji,
>>>>     Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>>>     web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
>>>>     Mobile: +2348035233535
>>>>     //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>>>     <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
>>>>
>>>>         The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140501/95710252/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


More information about the Governance mailing list