[governance] Re: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference

Fri Nov 7 20:53:37 EST 2014

For what it's worth -`
There was a short meeting in Istanbul between a team from WEF and
representatives of the CSCG. I was there to represent Mawaki, the IGC
member of the CSCG. My impression from that meeting was that what was being
proposed was essentially a clearinghouse for projects that would bring
project proposers and potential funders together with the intention of
" develop[ing]
solutions where none exist". The WEF apparently already does something
similar in a more general development context. This would be for
specifically Internet/IG related projects. I thought I heard something
similar yesterday, although everything was rather fuzzy.

This may be completely erroneous but that's what it sounded like under the
decoration. It may become clearer when the transcript is made available.

Deirdre

On 7 November 2014 08:53, Anne Jellema <anne.jellema at webfoundation.org>
wrote:

> Thanks Jeremy, Bill and others for the info.
> Before we dive into our favourite pastime of arguing about who represents
> whom and how they should be chosen, I'm interested to know what others
> think about the value add of this forum in the first place.
> Isn't "a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet and
> .... develop solutions where none exist" a pretty good description of what
> the IGF is or should be? Is there really a need for WEF and ICANN to divert
> time and resources into creating another one?
> best
> Anne
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks Jeremy for the summary.  Just to flag one immediate issue about
>> the CC: the four categories of participants don’t correspond to the
>> nongovernmental ones used for Sao Paulo and 1NET, and "academia, the
>> technical community and foundations” are tossed together into one basket.
>> I’m not sure what process can be devised here to get those three distinct
>> groupings to agree on 5 names, inter alia since foundations have not been
>> organized and engaged in IG processes as a stakeholder group.  Unless a
>> coordinated solution can be found (e.g. 2/2/1), one can easily imagine them
>> getting more than 5 nominations, in which case CGI.br, ICANN and WEF
>> will end up having to pick their best guess of a mix those groups will
>> accept.  So making this work as a thoroughly bottom-up process could be a
>> challenge even if CS and business can work out their respective issues.
>> More differentiated baskets would have saved some headaches.
>>
>> How to constitute the CC is obviously just one of the questions that will
>> have to be worked through.  How exactly the platform would operate and what
>> the CC’s role and responsibilities would be also are very much TBD.  One
>> could imagine the CC overseeing the design of the platform; serving as as a
>> facilitator of connections when someone proposes a project and solicits
>> partners/support; facilitating the dissemination of progress reports; etc.
>> But should it do more than this?  It’s not clear that the CC should be
>> deciding which project proposals can be appear on the platform; specifying
>> a framework for their formulation and conduct; overseeing their progress,
>> and so on.  I guess it will be for the CC to figure these things out in
>> consultation with the wider communities.
>>
>> One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM
>> Statement's principles.  I believe you raised this possibility at the
>> August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind.  A
>> priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise
>> the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive.  Better to
>> stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the
>> discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive
>> forums/processes, no?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>>  I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to
>> find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had
>> drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly.
>>
>> The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised
>> organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the
>> Internet.  It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and
>> WEF) and proposed "Solutions".  The solutions can be contributed by anyone
>> in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for
>> assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists,
>> and on developing solutions where there are gaps.
>>
>> There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly
>> to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own
>> separate but parallel Internet initiative.  However WEF will continue to
>> enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council,
>> and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not
>> be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial".  This is because the
>> NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's
>> work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in
>> stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on
>> evolving them if someone proposed this.)
>>
>> The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are
>> permanent seats for CGI.br <http://cgi.br/>, WEF, ICANN,
>> the I* group, and the IGF MAG.  Note: no permanent seat for civil
>> society, except through CGI.br and the IGF.  The other 20 members will
>> be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the
>> technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and
>> intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across
>> all geographical regions.
>>
>> There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew
>> skeptical responses in the webconference chat room.  Although they did
>> invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives,
>> ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide
>> between them if too many nominations were received.  (From civil society's
>> point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do
>> so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in
>> order to avoid giving WEF that power.)
>>
>> Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a
>> week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a
>> nomination process through the CSCG.
>>
>>   --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>>  Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>>  :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************
>> 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
>> ***********************************************
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> CEO
> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA)
> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> Twitter: @afjellema
> PGP: A84F061D
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://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
>

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141107/4535f9f0/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