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

Mon Aug 5 09:48:54 EDT 2019

 Dear Sheetal, 
Thanks for reminder. 

I will also join the meeting.
Best Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah

    On Monday, 5 August 2019, 16:52:08 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:  

 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! 

BestSheetal

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  
6 Aug, 15:00 | 1 hr 30 min

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

Host: Global Partners Digital
  |

 |    |  
| 
 |   Join   | 
 |

 |

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 allAs 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?

BestSheetal

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 Communications
apc.org
afrisig.org
anriette 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>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

-- 

Sheetal KumarProgramme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +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 KumarProgramme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190805/ec409755/attachment.htm>