[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,

Thanks to those who attended the call yesterday, it was great to speak to
you and hope you find it as productive as I did.

Please find the notes and recording of the call at the top of the pad:
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture

Best
Sheetal.

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 14:49, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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!
>
> 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|
>
> ---
> 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/20190807/a3bc7e38/attachment.htm>