[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