[governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps")

[Sheetal Kumar]

Dear all,

This is just a polite reminder that we'll be having our call tomorrow, 06
August at 2 PM UTC. Please find the details below, I look forward to
speaking to you then!

Best
Sheetal

*Date and time:* 06 August, 2 PM UTC

To join the call online, please click the green "join" button below and
follow the on-screen prompts. To connect to audio, please click the "call
using computer" button on the left hand side of the webex window.


Bestbits closure and revived IGC: Next steps
<https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/meetings/view?uuid=MDCCYAEK5DKYWUGH875ZS20WQ5-OY93&ucs=email>

*6 Aug, 15:00* | 1 hr 30 min

London (Western European Summer Time, GMT+01:00)

Host: Global Partners Digital


Join
<https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/meetings/join?uuid=MDCCYAEK5DKYWUGH875ZS20WQ5-OY93>


*Agenda:*
1) Closure of Bestbits: agreement on date and process
2) Moving to IGC: what is the current status? What is happening/what to
expect?
3) Organisation of civil society day 0 event: discussion of timeline
4) AOB


On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 at 00:55, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Sheetal and all
> As much as I agree with bulk of the outlined summarised by you, there is
> need for IGC charter review and left for me to accommodate and harmonise
> thoughts on the new dispensation and could actually be a major task for new
> coordinators once after their election
> I wish us well in this efforts.
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 12:11 PM Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been away for a week and I
>> trust you received my OOO. Reading through the comments, it seems to me
>> there is more or less agreement on some things but less on others. In
>> essence:
>>
>>    - There seems to be agreement that reviving IGC is a good thing
>>    because there's a lot of work to be done by CS on important IG issues on
>>    the global agenda/at global forums
>>    - There's some agreement that merging BB with IGC would be a good way
>>    forward to accomplish that but concern that the appropriate process hasn't
>>    been followed within IGC, albeit there is disagreement about what that
>>    process would/could be
>>    - There's agreement that all documents, from both lists, should be
>>    preserved and centralised for easy access by all members
>>    - There support for organising a day 0 event at the IGF in Berlin
>>    - There's less agreement that there's a need to review the IGC
>>    Charter
>>
>> Hopefully this captures the conversation so far?
>>
>> I've also read the responses on the thread which includes Bestbits and
>> although there are only a few responses there, combined with the views of
>> those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, I think we can say that there
>> is general support from the Bestbits list members for merging so far.
>>
>> As such, I'd suggest the following as a way forward, interested to hear
>> what others think if you don't agree:
>>
>>    - If there isn't agreement on the diagnosis of the problem, we can
>>    start the discussion anew. It's important we all agree on the premise we're
>>    working on, otherwise we'll move forward leaving people behind and just
>>    recreate the current situation again. Currently the diagnosis of those
>>    engaged, and the basis of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, is
>>    that civil society working on IG issues is split/fragmented and therefore
>>    less effective than it could be. If anyone disagrees with this diagnosis, I
>>    think they should express this on the thread with Bestbits included
>>    - If anyone is against the merger as a way of addressing this issue
>>    (i.e split/fragmentation as a key factor which explains our
>>    ineffectiveness) I think this should be expressed on the Bestbits thread
>>    too - mainly because of the general support for the idea of merging among
>>    members of both lists, and the main concern currently expressed about the
>>    merger being about process. Otherwise, the conversations will continue to
>>    be split and the current situation will be perpetuated.
>>    - If anyone is against the idea of reforming the Charter *in
>>    principle* they make that clear in the thread with Bestbits too - as
>>    there maybe Bestbits members who have opinions on that as well. This is
>>    just a conversation so if there is strong disagreement about reforming the
>>    Charter among anyone in either list, we could potentially agree not to
>>    reform it and revisit the idea in a year, for example.
>>
>> Unless there's disagreement, I'll send a reminder to the thread which
>> includes Bestbits at the end of this week, and hopefully we can weave
>> ourselves back together there?
>>
>> Best
>> Sheetal
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of
>>> course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list
>>> archives.
>>>
>>> By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have pretty
>>> complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a back-up drive
>>> somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list when it was still
>>> hosted by APC is still available somewhere too.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning
>>> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org
>>>
>>> On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>
>>> Really good point, Sheetal.
>>>
>>> But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there
>>> are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because
>>> the lists are not integrated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these
>>> lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor
>>> maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --MM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had
>>> here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits
>>> in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of
>>> the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some
>>> point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I
>>> believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the
>>> conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the
>>> conversation that has already happened?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Sheetal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini <
>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I did not say anybody was suggesting anything.  It was just a reminder.
>>>
>>> Tks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits
>>> documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how
>>> we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been
>>> wanting to transfer the domain name for the past  I think around 3 years,
>>> no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for
>>> example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the
>>> proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter
>>> recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still
>>> support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how
>>> we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can
>>> consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs
>>> of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and
>>> generally more engagement with IG processes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to
>>> discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my
>>> opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a
>>> meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held
>>> meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think
>>> (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members,
>>> Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and
>>> am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help
>>> was crucial in making that happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together
>>> and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance
>>> issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's
>>> just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have
>>> these conversations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini <
>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There
>>> are more than 11.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has
>>> a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I
>>> am.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive
>>> touch it does deserve.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com <
>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join
>>> IGC individually. End of story.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala
>>> points out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>>
>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>
>>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
>>>
>>> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" <ba2482 at columbia.edu>; "Lee W McKnight" <
>>> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>;
>>> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" <
>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>
>>> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging
>>> with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of
>>> Bestbits: next steps")
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine
>>> consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge
>>> then by all means.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to
>>> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to
>>> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they
>>> left or unsubscribed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data
>>> from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this
>>> has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion
>>> and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC
>>> has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in
>>> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see
>>> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum
>>> in their individual capacity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum
>>> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members
>>> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that
>>> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a
>>> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report
>>> back to the UNGA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others
>>> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like
>>> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to
>>> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over
>>> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others
>>> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which
>>> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and
>>> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber
>>> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these
>>> giants.  Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global
>>> public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has
>>> always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West,
>>> South, North. The principles are well established in International law and
>>> Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is
>>> relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have
>>> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN
>>> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and
>>> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN
>>> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the
>>> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet
>>> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a
>>> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non
>>> bureaucratic way to get traction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation!
>>> Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for
>>> imposing taxes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore
>>> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co
>>> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative
>>> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a
>>> European Court of Human Rights with others.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to
>>> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Sala
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Carolina Rossini *
>>>
>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>
>>> PGP ID:  0xEC81015C
>>>
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Carolina Rossini *
>>>
>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>
>>> PGP ID:  0xEC81015C
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Sheetal Kumar*
>>>
>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>
>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>>>
>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603
>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> *Sheetal Kumar*
>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603
>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>

-- 


*Sheetal Kumar*
Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F
E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190805/4df7b9f0/attachment.htm>