From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Feb  5 00:38:47 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 00:38:47 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Feb 2019 UN High-level Panel on Digital
 Cooperation Virtual Town Hall Meeting
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1NXQmwAuWMAnUKGVgN8csVbeAyJPv25C45cbGdOnPFUQ@mail.gmail.com>

For those that missed the live session, and other interested
parties..Starts shortly.

[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation3>Yesterday
Monday 4 February 2019 the *United Nations High-level Panel on Digital
Cooperation <https://digitalcooperation.org/> *hosted its monthly *Virtual
Town Hall*. Presenters Public Affairs* Madeline McSherry* and Deputy
Executive Director *Claire Messina* recapped the panel's 6 month history
and its 2nd meeting in late January. A mildly edited version of the Town
Hall will be webcast today *5 February 2019* at *1am ET* | 06:00 UTC
via *ISOC.LIVE
<https://isoc.live/>*

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM*:
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation3 (open AI
captions)

*JANUARY 2019 VIRTUAL TOWN HALL*
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation2

*OCTOBER 2018 VIRTUAL TOWN HALL*
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/DigitalCooperation

*TWITTE*R: #DigitalCooperation http://bit.ly/digitalcooperation

*ABOUT*
The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was established by the UN
Secretary-General in July 2018 to identify good examples and propose
modalities for working cooperatively across sectors, disciplines and
borders to address challenges in the digital age. The panel will deliver a
final report with actionable recommendations in 2019.
https://digitalcooperation.org/


*Permalink*:
https://isoc.live/10881/




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190205/036f83f0/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Feb 11 04:02:50 2019
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:02:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <A110B7ED-2AF9-4291-9E8B-EC390D9099D7@jhellerstein.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
	<CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<671dc7d8-147d-d454-7c4f-2fbe12c09286@itforchange.net>
	<CAN1qJvAqpM2MpuxjgjNC=yjeRj7MFf69kU8tqiKncT=ccFbchw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v-2=BUaLmrHjSO_NLT8z+gCf=o9HGKmMwZhtK9BjibYKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A110B7ED-2AF9-4291-9E8B-EC390D9099D7@jhellerstein.com>
Message-ID: <20190211100250.5223a6c1@quill>

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 05:35:02 -0500
Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com> wrote:

> I agree with both Mawaki and Farzi on this. Not sure why WEF is not
> the body asking this question 

One potential explanation, which is plausible in my eyes, is that it's
maybe not WEF who has the active desire to make this collaboration
happen in particular, but the MAG chair, whom I've personally heard
boast about how many WEFs she has attended in Davos.

Greetings,
Norbert

From ocl at gih.com  Mon Feb 11 05:53:44 2019
From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:53:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
 <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8787dc91-2cfe-6750-6c2c-df3f4bc0021f@gih.com>

Dear Arsene,

having read the pushback from other participants here, could the WEF be
a potentially valuable source of funding for the IGF?
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 07/02/2019 15:14, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> last page of the document.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> Discussion Document
> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>
> Dear MAG members,
>
> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> activities/collaboration”.
>
> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> creating this document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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/20190211/77445af7/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Mon Feb 11 06:55:36 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:55:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <8787dc91-2cfe-6750-6c2c-df3f4bc0021f@gih.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
 <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com> <8787dc91-2cfe-6750-6c2c-df3f4bc0021f@gih.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWpNsV_e76NoLRVCgkZ7T4FuOa0B7Yj64HVkHtfzvAqJPA@mail.gmail.com>

This is another way to look into this question, Olivier! Who knows?

2019-02-11 12:53 UTC+02:00, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>:
> Dear Arsene,
>
> having read the pushback from other participants here, could the WEF be
> a potentially valuable source of funding for the IGF?
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 07/02/2019 15:14, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>>
>> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
>> last page of the document.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>> Discussion Document
>> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>>
>> Dear MAG members,
>>
>> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
>> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
>> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>> activities/collaboration”.
>>
>> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>> creating this document.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
>


-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Mon Feb 11 07:32:42 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Baudouin SCHOMBE (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:32:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org> <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHj_20gMAugmtDZCHdO2dVRBUckWPcjAQX=ENEvhFCokA6TvSw@mail.gmail.com>

IGF and WEF, two forums that each have different routes but can cross
paths. But
is it time to make another point on the agenda?


*SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*

*SECRETAIRE EXECUTIF FGI-IGF RDC*

*COORDONNATEUR NATIONALE CAFECICANN/AFRALO Member*
*http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org>*
*ISOC Member*
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr





Le jeu. 7 févr. 2019 à 15:14, Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> last page of the document.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> Discussion Document
> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>
> Dear MAG members,
>
> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> activities/collaboration”.
>
> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> creating this document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> ---
> 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/20190211/fc1df98f/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Mon Feb 11 10:03:16 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:03:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org> <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMCMt7ovr2N9CgF_v6muDOpDghXSMJDBTt45XCsFLs0WqOo3qQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Arsene,

Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been said,
the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the IGF's
work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I don't
see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this isn't
with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports and
such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer ties
and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to collaborate
more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise, contacts,
and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any that
are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already participating
in the IGF, so why make any special exception?

Perhaps I'm naive, though.

Best,
-Michael



On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> last page of the document.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> Discussion Document
> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>
> Dear MAG members,
>
> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> activities/collaboration”.
>
> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> creating this document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> ---
> 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/20190211/d85b5b77/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Mon Feb 11 10:25:36 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:25:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CAMCMt7ovr2N9CgF_v6muDOpDghXSMJDBTt45XCsFLs0WqOo3qQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
 <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMCMt7ovr2N9CgF_v6muDOpDghXSMJDBTt45XCsFLs0WqOo3qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWod1rLjVVPcSPhS2bjxY0M1V=en6gD=MFcZHUny5UmWaw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
for your information as well as to see what members think about this
discussion on the MAG.

My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
turning on the side of WHY the WEF?

I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
direction as well?

Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?

2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
> Hi Arsene,
>
> Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been said,
> the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the IGF's
> work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I don't
> see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this isn't
> with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports and
> such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer ties
> and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to collaborate
> more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise, contacts,
> and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
> infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any that
> are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already participating
> in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
>
> Perhaps I'm naive, though.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>>
>> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
>> last page of the document.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>> Discussion Document
>> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>>
>> Dear MAG members,
>>
>> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
>> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
>> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>> activities/collaboration”.
>>
>> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>> creating this document.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> GPG: 523644A0
>>
>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> <
>>
>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>> >
>>
>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>


-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Feb 11 10:55:27 2019
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:55:27 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWod1rLjVVPcSPhS2bjxY0M1V=en6gD=MFcZHUny5UmWaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
 <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMCMt7ovr2N9CgF_v6muDOpDghXSMJDBTt45XCsFLs0WqOo3qQ@mail.gmail.com>,<CABDXvWod1rLjVVPcSPhS2bjxY0M1V=en6gD=MFcZHUny5UmWaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu>

My 2 cents,


As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never happened.


Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )  there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they once were, and they don't like it.


And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be fruitfully input into IGF discussions.


So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors to - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome like anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of mutual interest does something interesting.


But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR for IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality trends which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change in its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss over.


Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a Netmundial v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the bother, or taint.

________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
To: Michael J. Oghia
Cc: governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document

Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
for your information as well as to see what members think about this
discussion on the MAG.

My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
turning on the side of WHY the WEF?

I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
direction as well?

Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?

2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
> Hi Arsene,
>
> Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been said,
> the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the IGF's
> work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I don't
> see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this isn't
> with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports and
> such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer ties
> and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to collaborate
> more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise, contacts,
> and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
> infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any that
> are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already participating
> in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
>
> Perhaps I'm naive, though.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>>
>> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
>> last page of the document.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>> Discussion Document
>> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>>
>> Dear MAG members,
>>
>> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
>> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
>> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>> activities/collaboration”.
>>
>> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>> creating this document.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> GPG: 523644A0
>>
>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> <
>>
>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>> >
>>
>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>


--
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190211/d9c40681/attachment.htm>

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Mon Feb 11 10:55:38 2019
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:55:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWod1rLjVVPcSPhS2bjxY0M1V=en6gD=MFcZHUny5UmWaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
 <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMCMt7ovr2N9CgF_v6muDOpDghXSMJDBTt45XCsFLs0WqOo3qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWod1rLjVVPcSPhS2bjxY0M1V=en6gD=MFcZHUny5UmWaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40a4b7bf-f1fe-14dd-ecfa-837832843f51@digitaldissidents.org>



On 2/11/19 4:25 PM, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? 

Because the WEF is an elitist organization that is the opposite of transparent. The WEF for decades has sought to be venue where world leaders and multinationals make policies behind closed doors, this, in my opinion, is the exact opposite of what one should seek to achieve in transnational governance.

Best,

Niels


-- 
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam

PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488  
                   643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Mon Feb 11 11:04:23 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:04:23 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWod1rLjVVPcSPhS2bjxY0M1V=en6gD=MFcZHUny5UmWaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
 <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMCMt7ovr2N9CgF_v6muDOpDghXSMJDBTt45XCsFLs0WqOo3qQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABDXvWod1rLjVVPcSPhS2bjxY0M1V=en6gD=MFcZHUny5UmWaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9xEhrskht5N2s7mXTgRPzxk223GZ-_U24tf4ewHNP=2Q@mail.gmail.com>

I understand the positive spirit here, Arsene, but before you get to that
question you need to consider the genesis of this request and first
understand where it comes from. If it comes from the WEF, then it should be
an obvious thing for them to know the reason why they find that partnership
desirable and let us know. If it someone else wanting and pushing for that
partnership then the question (to that person or entity) becomes why
particularly or only WEF? Why not WSF, as parminder pointed out, why not a
call to all stakeholders who are willing to contribute something more
within a general framework?

So yes, before going to the "Why not?" or before one could even
appropriately answer your questions relating to the "Why not?", one needs
to understand the real origin and motivation of the request. Otherwise, we
might as well as them to make a general call to all stakeholders after
defining a clear framework of engagement (which is not to be done on the
fly.)


====================================
Mawaki Chango, PhD
Founder & Managing Director

DigiLexis Consulting
Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis
Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango
Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555
====================================



On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:25 PM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
wrote:

> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
> discussion on the MAG.
>
> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
>
> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
> direction as well?
>
> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
>
> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
> > Hi Arsene,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been said,
> > the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the IGF's
> > work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
> don't
> > see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this isn't
> > with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports
> and
> > such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer
> ties
> > and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to collaborate
> > more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise, contacts,
> > and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
> > infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any that
> > are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
> participating
> > in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
> >
> > Perhaps I'm naive, though.
> >
> > Best,
> > -Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
> governance at lists.riseup.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> >> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
> >>
> >> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> >> last page of the document.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Arsene
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> >> Discussion Document
> >> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> >> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
> >>
> >> Dear MAG members,
> >>
> >> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> >> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> >> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> >> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> >> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> >> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> >> activities/collaboration”.
> >>
> >> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> >> creating this document.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Lynn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------------------
> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> >> GPG: 523644A0
> >>
> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> >> <
> >>
> >>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> >> ---
> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> ---
> 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/20190211/bff9cb0e/attachment.htm>

From LB at lucabelli.net  Mon Feb 11 14:32:40 2019
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:32:40 -0700
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>

 I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
 While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed "collaboration" between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
 The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort of cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the rest of the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an optimal choice...

 IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work with the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that "Collaboration between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy that sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the case).
 
 Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at the time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is exclusively in the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on the other side.
 
 Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting to know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not with other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the Tunis Agenda https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0 ) does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather than focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g of the Tunis Agenda)?

 If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both), they may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF vassalage. 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Belli, PhD 
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law School 
Chercheur Associ&eacute;, Centre de Droit Public Compar&eacute;, Universit&eacute; Paris 2

www.internet-governance.fgv.br
@1lucabelli 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake.


 
 
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, "arsenebaguma at gmail.com" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>

    My 2 cents,
  
 As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never happened.
 
 
 Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )  there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they once were, and they don't like it.
 
 
 And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be fruitfully input into IGF discussions.
 
 
 So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors to - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome like anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of mutual interest does something interesting.  
 
 
 But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR for IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality trends which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change in its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss over. 
 
 
 Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a Netmundial v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the bother, or taint.
 
 From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Ars&egrave;ne Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
 Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
 To: Michael J. Oghia
 Cc: governance
 Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document  


Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
 for your information as well as to see what members think about this
 discussion on the MAG.
 
 My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
 turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
 
 I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
 anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
 any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
 direction as well?
 
 Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
 they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
 
 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
 > Hi Arsene,
 >
 > Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been said,
 > the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the IGF's
 > work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I don't
 > see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement - and this isn't
 > with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports and
 > such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer ties
 > and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to collaborate
 > more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise, contacts,
 > and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
 > infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any that
 > are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already participating
 > in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
 >
 > Perhaps I'm naive, though.
 >
 > Best,
 > -Michael
 >
 >
 >
 > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Ars&egrave;ne Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
 > wrote:
 >
 >> Hi all,
 >>
 >> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
 >> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
 >>
 >> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
 >> last page of the document.
 >>
 >> Regards,
 >> Arsene
 >>
 >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 >> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
 >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
 >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 >> Discussion Document
 >> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
 >> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
 >>
 >> Dear MAG members,
 >>
 >> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
 >> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
 >> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
 >> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
 >> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
 >> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
 >> activities/collaboration”.
 >>
 >> Thank you to Derek O'Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
 >> creating this document.
 >>
 >> Best regards,
 >>
 >> Lynn
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> --
 >> ------------------------
 >> **Ars&egrave;ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
 >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
 >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
 >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
 >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
 >> GPG: 523644A0
 >>
 >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
 >> <
 >>
 >>  http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
 >> >
 >>
 >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
 >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
 >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
 >> ---
 >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
 >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
 >>
 >
 
 
 -- 
 ------------------------
 **Ars&egrave;ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
 Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
 <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
 CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
 Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
 GPG: 523644A0
 
 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
 <
 http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
 
 (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
 <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
 <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
--- 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/20190211/3428d34c/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Tue Feb  5 23:25:41 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Amrita" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:55:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] Policy and IG Updates of January 2019
Message-ID: <001e01d4bdd4$087e7a50$197b6ef0$@com>

Hi,

 

Apologies for cross posting.

 

For those who may be interested, read about the IG events and policy
developments in January, from the Indian perspective, curated by CCAOI using
this link
<http://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwnewsletter/CCAOI%20Newsletter%20January%2020
19.pdf> .: 

 

Regards

 

Amrita

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190206/73055efe/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Tue Feb 12 05:39:53 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Akinremi Peter Taiwo (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:39:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu> <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>

Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF is
opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue in
SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the right
thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this collaboration,
no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired outcomes.
Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.

@Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)

Regards.
Peter

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> wrote:

> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
>
> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed "collaboration"
> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
>
> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort of
> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the rest of
> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
> optimal choice...
>
> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work with
> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that "Collaboration
> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy that
> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
> between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the case).
>
> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at the
> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is exclusively in
> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on the
> other side.
>
> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting to
> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not with
> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the Tunis
> Agenda
> https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0 )
> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather than
> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g of
> the Tunis Agenda)?
>
> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both), they
> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
> vassalage.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Luca Belli*, PhD
> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
> School
> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
> www.internet-governance.fgv.br
> @1lucabelli
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information
> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the
> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email
> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of
> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by
> mistake.*
>
>
>
>
>
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, "arsenebaguma at gmail.com" <
> arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>
> My 2 cents,
>
>
>
> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
> happened.
>
>
> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they
> once were, and they don't like it.
>
>
> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be fruitfully
> input into IGF discussions.
>
>
> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors to
> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome like
> anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a
> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of mutual
> interest does something interesting.
>
>
> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR for
> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or
> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality trends
> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change in
> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss
> over.
>
>
> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a Netmundial
> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the
> bother, or taint.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net <
> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali <
> governance at lists.riseup.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
> *Cc:* governance
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>
> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
> discussion on the MAG.
>
> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
>
> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
> direction as well?
>
> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
>
> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
> > Hi Arsene,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been said,
> > the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the IGF's
> > work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
> don't
> > see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this isn't
> > with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports
> and
> > such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer
> ties
> > and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to collaborate
> > more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise, contacts,
> > and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
> > infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any that
> > are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
> participating
> > in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
> >
> > Perhaps I'm naive, though.
> >
> > Best,
> > -Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
> governance at lists.riseup.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> >> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
> >>
> >> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> >> last page of the document.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Arsene
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> >> Discussion Document
> >> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> >> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
> >>
> >> Dear MAG members,
> >>
> >> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> >> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> >> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> >> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> >> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> >> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> >> activities/collaboration”.
> >>
> >> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> >> creating this document.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Lynn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------------------
> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> >> GPG: 523644A0
> >>
> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> >> <
> >>
> >>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> >> ---
> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> --- To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List help: <
> https://riseup.net/lists>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>


-- 
<https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
Peter Taiwo Akinremi
about.me/petertaiwoakinremi
<https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190212/d5a2d203/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 13 01:13:50 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:13:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] [AfriSIG-Alumni] AU considering "good digital
 identity" this week
In-Reply-To: <734c5994-7939-773a-e35a-2d01cff140f6@apc.org>
References: <734c5994-7939-773a-e35a-2d01cff140f6@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWqZjFbG9Wx9a8AQshXfPHbYGi8+c=V478T1H3P3PKZ6MQ@mail.gmail.com>

This is a good and smart vision for Africa, thanks Anriette for sharing.

I only hope that if this Framework is endorsed by heads of states,
they will then be able to implement it in their respective countries
and therefore support the digital economy in African states.

We have seen many resolutions being adopted from the top but nothing
happened on the ground. I continue believing that in this area of
digital development, a bottom-up approach is always the best.

Thanks,
Arsene

2019-02-12 23:31 UTC+02:00, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
>
>   *African Union to Consider Good Digital Identity Principles at Summit*
>
>
>     /Framework aims to help millions of Africans benefit from the
>     digital economy while keeping the interests of African people at the
>     center of digital identity systems/
>
> Go to the profile of Omidyar Network
> <https://medium.com/@OmidyarNetwork?source=post_header_lockup>
> Omidyar Network <https://medium.com/@OmidyarNetwork>
> Feb 5
>
> /By Abiah Weaver, Director of Strategic Marketing and Communications,
> Omidyar Network/
>
>
> T*his weekend, the African Union (AU) will consider a framework for Good
> Digital Identity in Africa in relationship to the African Continental
> Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). On the eve of this important policy decision,
> Omidyar Network investment partner Magdi Amin tells us why a set of ten
> principles are shaping trade discussions and what the AU’s endorsement
> could mean for Africa.*
>
>
>         *What is Good ID?*
>
> *Magdi Amin: */Digital identity, simply put, is a digital means of
> establishing you are who you say you are. Good ID is an empowering form
> of identity designed to be inclusive, private, secure, and controlled by
> the individual with the goal of helping people to participate more fully
> and fearlessly in society and the digital economy. Issuing Good ID,
> backed by safeguards and principles, helps countries maximize the
> benefits and continental aspirations while minimizing the risks for
> people, business, and government./
>
>
>         *What is the Good Digital Identity for Africa* *Framework?*
>
> *Magdi Amin: */The Framework is a set of ten principles designed to
> guide and govern national digital identity systems in countries across
> the continent. The principles build on the AU Data Protection Guidelines
> and help define Africa’s views on inclusion, data ownership,
> interoperability across borders, compatibility with existing systems,
> privacy, security and safeguards, governance, neutrality, and
> accountability. The framework also addresses exclusion, discrimination,
> surveillance, consent, and other key issues of our time./
>
>
>         *What’s happening at the AU Summit?*
>
> *Magdi Amin: */The Framework has been recommended to the executive
> committee for inclusion in the official AU Summit agenda. Between Feb.
> 10 and 11, heads of state will have the opportunity to take a
> comprehensive assembly decision on digital identity for Africa. We are
> optimistic that leaders will embrace these foundational principles and
> seize the opportunity to shape the future of digital identity for the
> continent./
>
> /Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda and co-chair of the UNECA Digital
> Identity Initiative, has already demonstrated his support of a
> Framework: “Our continent must take full advantage of the digital
> revolution. Achieving a harmonized digital ID framework … would be a
> first and would put Africa at the forefront of the digital economy. That
> is why we will work towards adopting a comprehensive Assembly decision
> on Digital ID for Africa at the AU Summit.”/
>
>
>         *Who created the Framework?*
>
> *Magdi Amin: */The Framework was developed in partnership with the
> African Union and the //UN Economic Commission for Africa/
> <https://medium.com/positive-returns/why-we-invested-un-economic-commission-for-africa-c55b824f09f3>/(UNECA).
> The World Bank Group, UNICEF, UNHCR, and other stakeholders were also
> engaged in the drafting of the Framework./
>
> /With Omidyar Network’s support, UNECA launched the African Center of
> Excellence on Digital Identity in November 2018, which seeks
> best-in-class solutions to harmonize digital identity systems and put
> Good ID in the hands of Africans. UNECA shares our belief that the
> significant economic value of identity systems can only be realized in a
> sustainable way if it is Good ID, inspires trust (through privacy and
> security), and therefore increases engagement./
>
> /We recently supported a McKinsey Global Institute //study/
> <https://medium.com/positive-returns/new-insight-good-digital-identification-as-a-key-to-inclusive-growth-33c64de32004>/that
> shows how Good ID can lead to an increase in gross domestic product,
> fuel technological innovation, save money, lower institutional risks,
> improve trust and acceptance, increase efficiency, and contribute to
> financial sustainability./
>
>
>         *Why does digital ID matter to Africans?*
>
> *Magdi Amin: */Today, more than 500 million Africans do not have a
> foundational form of ID. This means many Africans cannot access
> employment and education opportunities; health and financial services;
> and critical social protection. Digital identity helps to include people
> in the growth and advancement of the continent./
>
> /Recently, Amani Abou-Zeid, Commissioner for Infrastructure and Energy
> at the AU, described the benefits of digital ID in this way:/ /“Digital
> ID is necessary for social and financial inclusion, access of benefits;
> contributes to trade exchanges and e-commerce and transactions;
> facilitates the movement of people across Africa.”/
>
> /The Framework ensures the type of ID Africans use is Good ID, and the
> efforts to drive economic growth keep the interests of African people at
> the center. Providing people with an empowering form of digital identity
> and other protections boosts trust and participation in the digital
> economy, which is expected to grow in Africa to over US $300 billion by
> 2025./
>
>
>         *How does the Framework fit into Agenda 2063?*
>
> *Magdi Amin: */In Agenda 2063, the African Union commits to eradicating
> poverty in a generation, catalyzing education, promoting science and
> technology, fast-tracking the establishment of AfCFTA, strengthening
> domestic resource mobilization, and introducing an African passport. An
> important foundation for realizing these objectives is establishing
> legal identities for African people./
>
> /As countries increase access to ID within their borders, the Framework
> helps to align their approaches to digital security and ownership as
> well as interoperability across other systems and across countries,
> while respecting country sovereignty./
>
> /Abiy Ahmed, Prime Minister of Ethiopia and co-chair of the UNECA
> Digital Identity Initiative, is modeling how each country can apply the
> framework to advance its economic and social priorities: “On February 2,
> the Council of Ministers of Ethiopia approved Ethiopia’s membership to
> the African Continental Free Trade Area. In Ethiopia, we are
> liberalizing the telecommunication sector, reforming the enabling
> environment for technology entrepreneurship, and are embarking on the
> path of Good ID. Digital identity, as a pillar of the digital economy,
> can help Africa build inclusive economic growth, and move us toward a
> digital common market across Africa…”/
>
>
>         *If the Framework is endorsed, what happens next?*
>
> *Magdi Amin: */If endorsed, the AU — in collaboration with member
> states, UNECA, and other key stakeholders — will develop a comprehensive
> AU Digital ID, Digital Trade, and Digital Economy Development Strategy./
>
> /For Vera Songwe, Executive Secretary of UNECA, this step is imperative:
> “(We) must agree on minimum requirements for the establishment of
> Digital Identification platforms through a continental
> approach. …digital identity is an imperative for the AfCFTA, including
> cooperation on a policy framework for e-commerce.”/
>
> /To advance the strategy, UNECA will develop a set of tools to help
> countries harmonize and improve their digital identity systems based on
> the principles. Omidyar Network has provided UNECA with a grant to
> develop a capacity building program to help senior officials understand
> the complexities of digital identity and to support countries as they
> design, deploy, and manage Good ID systems./
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> */Follow the AU summit debate February 10th and 11th on Twitter and
> share your views using #GoodID./*
>
>   * Africa <https://medium.com/tag/africa?source=post>
>   * Digital Identity <https://medium.com/tag/digital-identity?source=post>
>   * Identity <https://medium.com/tag/identity?source=post>
>
> --
> -----------------------------
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic
> planning
> Association for Progressive Communications
> apc.org
> afrisig.org
> anriette at apc.org
>
>


-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 13 01:55:08 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:55:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu> <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
 <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

As we keep on reflecting.

Here is a question I asked Lynn (Chair of the MAG) on the MAG public list:

“Who requested this collaboration in the first place? Is it the WEF
that came to the IG or the other way around? If it is the IGF that
went on seeking WEF's collaboration, was it done through the IGF
Secretariat or was it a personal initiative of the MAG Chair?”

And here is her answer:

“Re your questions below, the WEF and the IGF have been collaborating
on various projects for at least 5 years, initially, I believe,
through the Internet For All project where the (then Chair) and
Secretariat followed the work of the WEF, and the Internet For All
project was made known to the NRIs for voluntary participation where
interests and projects intersected.  There may have been other
projects at that early point as well (NetMundial Initiative? though
that didn’t get too far within the IGF); if important we can follow up
with the secretariat or MAG members from that time, as my recollection
is certainly not complete nor definitive.

This recent offer of collaboration recognized the complementary nature
of our communities, and of course any collaboration would be voluntary
- on all parties.

In my personal opinion, I would always opt for engaging with any
community that has a stake in the Internet (or applications, services,
etc.) to help ensure they were getting the most representative view
possible.  It was in that light that this Collaboration Discussion
Document was produced.  It was introduced at the MAG Open Consultation
meeting under the Agenda item: 'Related IG activities', but not
discussed in any detail, mainly due to time.  It will be scheduled for
a future MAG meeting once the more pressing items having to do with
the Call for Workshops is well advanced.

Hope this helps clarify,

Best,
Lynn”

Let me know what are your thoughts and if this helpful or not.

Regards,
Arsene



2019-02-12 12:39 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
> Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF is
> opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue in
> SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
> Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
> collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the right
> thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this collaboration,
> no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired outcomes.
> Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.
>
> @Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
> eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)
>
> Regards.
> Peter
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
>>
>> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed
>> "collaboration"
>> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
>> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
>> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
>>
>> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
>> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
>> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort
>> of
>> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the rest
>> of
>> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
>> optimal choice...
>>
>> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work with
>> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that
>> "Collaboration
>> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy
>> that
>> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
>> between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the
>> case).
>>
>> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at
>> the
>> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is exclusively
>> in
>> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on the
>> other side.
>>
>> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
>> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting
>> to
>> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not
>> with
>> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
>> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the
>> Tunis
>> Agenda
>> https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0 )
>> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
>> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather than
>> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
>> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
>> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g of
>> the Tunis Agenda)?
>>
>> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
>> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both),
>> they
>> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
>> vassalage.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Luca Belli*, PhD
>> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
>> School
>> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
>> www.internet-governance.fgv.br
>> @1lucabelli
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
>> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information
>> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of
>> the
>> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
>> email
>> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
>> of
>> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be
>> unlawful.
>> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by
>> mistake.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------- Original Message ---------
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
>> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, "arsenebaguma at gmail.com" <
>> arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>>
>>
>>
>> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
>> happened.
>>
>>
>> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
>> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
>> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they
>> once were, and they don't like it.
>>
>>
>> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
>> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be
>> fruitfully
>> input into IGF discussions.
>>
>>
>> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors
>> to
>> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome
>> like
>> anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a
>> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of
>> mutual
>> interest does something interesting.
>>
>>
>> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR for
>> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
>> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or
>> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality
>> trends
>> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change in
>> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss
>> over.
>>
>>
>> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
>> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a
>> Netmundial
>> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the
>> bother, or taint.
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net <
>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali <
>> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
>> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
>> *Cc:* governance
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>>
>> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
>> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
>> discussion on the MAG.
>>
>> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
>> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
>>
>> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
>> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
>> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
>> direction as well?
>>
>> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
>> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
>>
>> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
>> > Hi Arsene,
>> >
>> > Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been
>> > said,
>> > the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the
>> > IGF's
>> > work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
>> don't
>> > see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this
>> > isn't
>> > with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports
>> and
>> > such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer
>> ties
>> > and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to
>> > collaborate
>> > more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise,
>> > contacts,
>> > and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
>> > infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any
>> > that
>> > are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
>> participating
>> > in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
>> >
>> > Perhaps I'm naive, though.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > -Michael
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
>> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>> >> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>> >>
>> >> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
>> >> last page of the document.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Arsene
>> >>
>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>> >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>> >> Discussion Document
>> >> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> >> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>> >>
>> >> Dear MAG members,
>> >>
>> >> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>> >> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
>> >> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
>> >> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>> >> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>> >> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>> >> activities/collaboration”.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>> >> creating this document.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> Lynn
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ------------------------
>> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> >> GPG: 523644A0
>> >>
>> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> >> <
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> >> ---
>> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> GPG: 523644A0
>>
>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> <
>>
>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>> >
>>
>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> --- To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List help:
>> <
>> https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>
>
> --
> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
> Peter Taiwo Akinremi
> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi
> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>


-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 13 02:59:21 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:59:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu> <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
 <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_xywEXmfWPutWTo=tM6At2S6nmrJAYe1m7y1dTCuZgvA@mail.gmail.com>

Whatever the comprehensive and definitive answer may be to that question or
to any further enquiry on this matter, I would simply suggest that, if IGF
were to go that road, it should avoid doing this on a case by case basis.

It should first draw up a general framework to govern such collaborations
(spelling out clearly the requirements, including about the Who, the Why
(for what purpose), under What conditions, the types and levels of
collaboration, etc.) A collaboration with WEF may then come within the
scope of that framework, just as any other collaboration initiative from
any other community or stakeholder group (including the ones with no big
money.)

I think that's pretty much about 2 cts.

Mawaki

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 6:55 AM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As we keep on reflecting.
>
> Here is a question I asked Lynn (Chair of the MAG) on the MAG public list:
>
> “Who requested this collaboration in the first place? Is it the WEF
> that came to the IG or the other way around? If it is the IGF that
> went on seeking WEF's collaboration, was it done through the IGF
> Secretariat or was it a personal initiative of the MAG Chair?”
>
> And here is her answer:
>
> “Re your questions below, the WEF and the IGF have been collaborating
> on various projects for at least 5 years, initially, I believe,
> through the Internet For All project where the (then Chair) and
> Secretariat followed the work of the WEF, and the Internet For All
> project was made known to the NRIs for voluntary participation where
> interests and projects intersected.  There may have been other
> projects at that early point as well (NetMundial Initiative? though
> that didn’t get too far within the IGF); if important we can follow up
> with the secretariat or MAG members from that time, as my recollection
> is certainly not complete nor definitive.
>
> This recent offer of collaboration recognized the complementary nature
> of our communities, and of course any collaboration would be voluntary
> - on all parties.
>
> In my personal opinion, I would always opt for engaging with any
> community that has a stake in the Internet (or applications, services,
> etc.) to help ensure they were getting the most representative view
> possible.  It was in that light that this Collaboration Discussion
> Document was produced.  It was introduced at the MAG Open Consultation
> meeting under the Agenda item: 'Related IG activities', but not
> discussed in any detail, mainly due to time.  It will be scheduled for
> a future MAG meeting once the more pressing items having to do with
> the Call for Workshops is well advanced.
>
> Hope this helps clarify,
>
> Best,
> Lynn”
>
> Let me know what are your thoughts and if this helpful or not.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
>
>
> 2019-02-12 12:39 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
> > Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF is
> > opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue in
> > SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
> > Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
> > collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the
> right
> > thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this
> collaboration,
> > no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired
> outcomes.
> > Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.
> >
> > @Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
> > eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)
> >
> > Regards.
> > Peter
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
> >>
> >> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed
> >> "collaboration"
> >> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
> >> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
> >> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
> >>
> >> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
> >> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
> >> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort
> >> of
> >> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the rest
> >> of
> >> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
> >> optimal choice...
> >>
> >> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work with
> >> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that
> >> "Collaboration
> >> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy
> >> that
> >> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
> >> between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the
> >> case).
> >>
> >> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at
> >> the
> >> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is exclusively
> >> in
> >> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on
> the
> >> other side.
> >>
> >> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
> >> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting
> >> to
> >> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not
> >> with
> >> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
> >> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the
> >> Tunis
> >> Agenda
> >> https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0
> )
> >> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
> >> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather than
> >> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
> >> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
> >> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g
> of
> >> the Tunis Agenda)?
> >>
> >> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
> >> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both),
> >> they
> >> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
> >> vassalage.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *Luca Belli*, PhD
> >> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
> >> School
> >> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
> >> www.internet-governance.fgv.br
> >> @1lucabelli
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
> >> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information
> >> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of
> >> the
> >> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> >> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
> >> email
> >> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
> >> of
> >> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be
> >> unlawful.
> >> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by
> >> mistake.*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------- Original Message ---------
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
> >> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
> >> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> >> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
> >> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, "arsenebaguma at gmail.com"
> <
> >> arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> >>
> >> My 2 cents,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
> >> happened.
> >>
> >>
> >> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
> >> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
> >> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they
> >> once were, and they don't like it.
> >>
> >>
> >> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
> >> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be
> >> fruitfully
> >> input into IGF discussions.
> >>
> >>
> >> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors
> >> to
> >> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome
> >> like
> >> anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a
> >> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of
> >> mutual
> >> interest does something interesting.
> >>
> >>
> >> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR
> for
> >> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
> >> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or
> >> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality
> >> trends
> >> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change
> in
> >> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss
> >> over.
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
> >> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a
> >> Netmundial
> >> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the
> >> bother, or taint.
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net <
> >> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali <
> >> governance at lists.riseup.net>
> >> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
> >> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
> >> *Cc:* governance
> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
> >> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
> >>
> >> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
> >> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
> >> discussion on the MAG.
> >>
> >> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
> >> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
> >>
> >> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
> >> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
> >> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
> >> direction as well?
> >>
> >> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
> >> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
> >>
> >> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Arsene,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been
> >> > said,
> >> > the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the
> >> > IGF's
> >> > work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
> >> don't
> >> > see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this
> >> > isn't
> >> > with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports
> >> and
> >> > such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer
> >> ties
> >> > and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to
> >> > collaborate
> >> > more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise,
> >> > contacts,
> >> > and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms
> and
> >> > infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any
> >> > that
> >> > are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
> >> participating
> >> > in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps I'm naive, though.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > -Michael
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
> >> governance at lists.riseup.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> >> >> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> >> >> last page of the document.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Arsene
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> >> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> >> >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> >> >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> >> >> Discussion Document
> >> >> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> >> >> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear MAG members,
> >> >>
> >> >> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> >> >> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the
> World
> >> >> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> >> >> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> >> >> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> >> >> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> >> >> activities/collaboration”.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> >> >> creating this document.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Lynn
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> ------------------------
> >> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> >> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> >> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> >> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> >> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> >> >> GPG: 523644A0
> >> >>
> >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> >> >> <
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> >> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF
> MAG
> >> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> >> >> ---
> >> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
> >> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
> >> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------------------
> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> >> GPG: 523644A0
> >>
> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> >> <
> >>
> >>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> >> --- To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List
> help:
> >> <
> >> https://riseup.net/lists>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > <
> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb
> >
> > Peter Taiwo Akinremi
> > about.me/petertaiwoakinremi
> > <
> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> ---
> 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/20190213/bd1696bf/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 13 03:37:18 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 03:37:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_xywEXmfWPutWTo=tM6At2S6nmrJAYe1m7y1dTCuZgvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu> <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
 <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_xywEXmfWPutWTo=tM6At2S6nmrJAYe1m7y1dTCuZgvA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvDZzA4RfUdRyHwt_h5AupDiRNFSCJ6YvvWN4OsrRp4fQQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Arsene for being informative and making us aware of the
discussion.

I totally agree with Mawaki. The way WEF has been singled out and chosen as
an org to cooperate with (whatever that means) is totally unknown and
arbitrary. If they want to collaborate they need to collaborate equally
with every interested stakeholder group and as Mawaki said have a
governance framework for such collaboration.

As to the Internet for all project, I can see that IGF is a member of its
steering committee. I am surprised! IGF is not an entity nor an
organization it is a forum and it cannot be represented by its "chair" on
this group (unless she is representing all of us through MAG, which I
doubt). and IGF activities at WEF are unclear. Making opening ceremony
speech is not a collaboration.

Internet for All looks like a project established in 2016 (but I might be
wrong, could not find more info in my cursory review). IGF at least until
2013-2014  always tried to be neutral and treat all the requests for being
engaged with IGF equally which even meant, no collaboration at all with a
single entity. WEF can be a donor, it can come to the forum and make a
speech, it can submit a workshop and work with the rest of the community
but I don't see any valid reason for special treatment.


Farzaneh


On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:59 AM Mawaki Chango <governance at lists.riseup.net>
wrote:

> Whatever the comprehensive and definitive answer may be to that question
> or to any further enquiry on this matter, I would simply suggest that, if
> IGF were to go that road, it should avoid doing this on a case by case
> basis.
>
> It should first draw up a general framework to govern such collaborations
> (spelling out clearly the requirements, including about the Who, the Why
> (for what purpose), under What conditions, the types and levels of
> collaboration, etc.) A collaboration with WEF may then come within the
> scope of that framework, just as any other collaboration initiative from
> any other community or stakeholder group (including the ones with no big
> money.)
>
> I think that's pretty much about 2 cts.
>
> Mawaki
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 6:55 AM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As we keep on reflecting.
>>
>> Here is a question I asked Lynn (Chair of the MAG) on the MAG public list:
>>
>> “Who requested this collaboration in the first place? Is it the WEF
>> that came to the IG or the other way around? If it is the IGF that
>> went on seeking WEF's collaboration, was it done through the IGF
>> Secretariat or was it a personal initiative of the MAG Chair?”
>>
>> And here is her answer:
>>
>> “Re your questions below, the WEF and the IGF have been collaborating
>> on various projects for at least 5 years, initially, I believe,
>> through the Internet For All project where the (then Chair) and
>> Secretariat followed the work of the WEF, and the Internet For All
>> project was made known to the NRIs for voluntary participation where
>> interests and projects intersected.  There may have been other
>> projects at that early point as well (NetMundial Initiative? though
>> that didn’t get too far within the IGF); if important we can follow up
>> with the secretariat or MAG members from that time, as my recollection
>> is certainly not complete nor definitive.
>>
>> This recent offer of collaboration recognized the complementary nature
>> of our communities, and of course any collaboration would be voluntary
>> - on all parties.
>>
>> In my personal opinion, I would always opt for engaging with any
>> community that has a stake in the Internet (or applications, services,
>> etc.) to help ensure they were getting the most representative view
>> possible.  It was in that light that this Collaboration Discussion
>> Document was produced.  It was introduced at the MAG Open Consultation
>> meeting under the Agenda item: 'Related IG activities', but not
>> discussed in any detail, mainly due to time.  It will be scheduled for
>> a future MAG meeting once the more pressing items having to do with
>> the Call for Workshops is well advanced.
>>
>> Hope this helps clarify,
>>
>> Best,
>> Lynn”
>>
>> Let me know what are your thoughts and if this helpful or not.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>>
>>
>> 2019-02-12 12:39 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
>> > Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF
>> is
>> > opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue
>> in
>> > SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
>> > Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
>> > collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the
>> right
>> > thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this
>> collaboration,
>> > no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired
>> outcomes.
>> > Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.
>> >
>> > @Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
>> > eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
>> >>
>> >> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed
>> >> "collaboration"
>> >> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
>> >> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
>> >> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
>> >>
>> >> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
>> >> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
>> >> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort
>> >> of
>> >> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the
>> rest
>> >> of
>> >> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
>> >> optimal choice...
>> >>
>> >> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work
>> with
>> >> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that
>> >> "Collaboration
>> >> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy
>> >> that
>> >> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
>> >> between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the
>> >> case).
>> >>
>> >> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at
>> >> the
>> >> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is
>> exclusively
>> >> in
>> >> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on
>> the
>> >> other side.
>> >>
>> >> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
>> >> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting
>> >> to
>> >> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not
>> >> with
>> >> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
>> >> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the
>> >> Tunis
>> >> Agenda
>> >> https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0
>> )
>> >> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
>> >> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather
>> than
>> >> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
>> >> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
>> >> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g
>> of
>> >> the Tunis Agenda)?
>> >>
>> >> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
>> >> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both),
>> >> they
>> >> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
>> >> vassalage.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> *Luca Belli*, PhD
>> >> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
>> >> School
>> >> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
>> >> www.internet-governance.fgv.br
>> >> @1lucabelli
>> >>
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
>> >> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain
>> information
>> >> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of
>> >> the
>> >> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> >> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
>> >> email
>> >> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
>> >> of
>> >> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be
>> >> unlawful.
>> >> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email
>> by
>> >> mistake.*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --------- Original Message ---------
>> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>> >> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>> >> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> >> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
>> >> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, "arsenebaguma at gmail.com"
>> <
>> >> arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> >>
>> >> My 2 cents,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
>> >> happened.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
>> >> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
>> >> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as
>> they
>> >> once were, and they don't like it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
>> >> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be
>> >> fruitfully
>> >> input into IGF discussions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors
>> >> to
>> >> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome
>> >> like
>> >> anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once
>> a
>> >> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of
>> >> mutual
>> >> interest does something interesting.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR
>> for
>> >> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
>> >> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or
>> >> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality
>> >> trends
>> >> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change
>> in
>> >> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not
>> gloss
>> >> over.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
>> >> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a
>> >> Netmundial
>> >> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the
>> >> bother, or taint.
>> >> ------------------------------
>> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net <
>> >> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali <
>> >> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> >> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
>> >> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
>> >> *Cc:* governance
>> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic
>> Forum
>> >> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
>> >> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
>> >> discussion on the MAG.
>> >>
>> >> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
>> >> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
>> >>
>> >> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
>> >> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
>> >> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
>> >> direction as well?
>> >>
>> >> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
>> >> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
>> >>
>> >> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi Arsene,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been
>> >> > said,
>> >> > the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the
>> >> > IGF's
>> >> > work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
>> >> don't
>> >> > see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this
>> >> > isn't
>> >> > with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the
>> reports
>> >> and
>> >> > such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for
>> closer
>> >> ties
>> >> > and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to
>> >> > collaborate
>> >> > more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise,
>> >> > contacts,
>> >> > and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms
>> and
>> >> > infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any
>> >> > that
>> >> > are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
>> >> participating
>> >> > in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps I'm naive, though.
>> >> >
>> >> > Best,
>> >> > -Michael
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
>> >> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi all,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>> >> >> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at
>> the
>> >> >> last page of the document.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Arsene
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> >> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> >> >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>> >> >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>> >> >> Discussion Document
>> >> >> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> >> >> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dear MAG members,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>> >> >> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the
>> World
>> >> >> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and
>> is
>> >> >> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>> >> >> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>> >> >> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>> >> >> activities/collaboration”.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>> >> >> creating this document.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Best regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Lynn
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> ------------------------
>> >> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> >> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> >> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> >> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> >> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> >> >> GPG: 523644A0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> >> >> <
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> >> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF
>> MAG
>> >> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>> >> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> >> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ------------------------
>> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> >> GPG: 523644A0
>> >>
>> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> >> <
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> >> --- To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List
>> help:
>> >> <
>> >> https://riseup.net/lists>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > <
>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb
>> >
>> > Peter Taiwo Akinremi
>> > about.me/petertaiwoakinremi
>> > <
>> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> GPG: 523644A0
>>
>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> <
>>
>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>> >
>>
>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
> ---
> 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/20190213/0391d784/attachment.htm>

From ocl at gih.com  Wed Feb 13 04:06:58 2019
From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:06:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu>
 <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
 <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1db63879-7580-1610-947b-66865624416f@gih.com>

Dear Arsène,

thanks for your kind follow-up. This is very helpful.
My own views are that if you preach for the multistakeholder model, then
you need to practice what you preach. The WEF is likely to help with a
number of things, funding for example, but also to address the sheer
lack of involvement of business in the IGF multistakeholder model. If
this collaboration with the WEF is going to address these challenges,
then I am all for it. The time for old-style militancy and political
biases has to be relegated to the past when one meeting after another is
themed around cooperation.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 13/02/2019 07:55, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As we keep on reflecting.
>
> Here is a question I asked Lynn (Chair of the MAG) on the MAG public list:
>
> “Who requested this collaboration in the first place? Is it the WEF
> that came to the IG or the other way around? If it is the IGF that
> went on seeking WEF's collaboration, was it done through the IGF
> Secretariat or was it a personal initiative of the MAG Chair?”
>
> And here is her answer:
>
> “Re your questions below, the WEF and the IGF have been collaborating
> on various projects for at least 5 years, initially, I believe,
> through the Internet For All project where the (then Chair) and
> Secretariat followed the work of the WEF, and the Internet For All
> project was made known to the NRIs for voluntary participation where
> interests and projects intersected.  There may have been other
> projects at that early point as well (NetMundial Initiative? though
> that didn’t get too far within the IGF); if important we can follow up
> with the secretariat or MAG members from that time, as my recollection
> is certainly not complete nor definitive.
>
> This recent offer of collaboration recognized the complementary nature
> of our communities, and of course any collaboration would be voluntary
> - on all parties.
>
> In my personal opinion, I would always opt for engaging with any
> community that has a stake in the Internet (or applications, services,
> etc.) to help ensure they were getting the most representative view
> possible.  It was in that light that this Collaboration Discussion
> Document was produced.  It was introduced at the MAG Open Consultation
> meeting under the Agenda item: 'Related IG activities', but not
> discussed in any detail, mainly due to time.  It will be scheduled for
> a future MAG meeting once the more pressing items having to do with
> the Call for Workshops is well advanced.
>
> Hope this helps clarify,
>
> Best,
> Lynn”
>
> Let me know what are your thoughts and if this helpful or not.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
>
>
> 2019-02-12 12:39 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
>> Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF is
>> opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue in
>> SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
>> Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
>> collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the right
>> thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this collaboration,
>> no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired outcomes.
>> Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.
>>
>> @Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
>> eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)
>>
>> Regards.
>> Peter
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
>>>
>>> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed
>>> "collaboration"
>>> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
>>> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
>>> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
>>>
>>> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
>>> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
>>> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort
>>> of
>>> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the rest
>>> of
>>> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
>>> optimal choice...
>>>
>>> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work with
>>> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that
>>> "Collaboration
>>> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy
>>> that
>>> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
>>> between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the
>>> case).
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at
>>> the
>>> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is exclusively
>>> in
>>> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on the
>>> other side.
>>>
>>> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
>>> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting
>>> to
>>> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not
>>> with
>>> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
>>> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the
>>> Tunis
>>> Agenda
>>> https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0 )
>>> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
>>> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather than
>>> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
>>> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
>>> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g of
>>> the Tunis Agenda)?
>>>
>>> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
>>> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both),
>>> they
>>> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
>>> vassalage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Luca Belli*, PhD
>>> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
>>> School
>>> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
>>> www.internet-governance.fgv.br
>>> @1lucabelli
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
>>> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information
>>> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of
>>> the
>>> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
>>> email
>>> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
>>> of
>>> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be
>>> unlawful.
>>> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by
>>> mistake.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------- Original Message ---------
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>>> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>>> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
>>> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, "arsenebaguma at gmail.com" <
>>> arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>
>>> My 2 cents,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
>>> happened.
>>>
>>>
>>> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
>>> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
>>> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they
>>> once were, and they don't like it.
>>>
>>>
>>> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
>>> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be
>>> fruitfully
>>> input into IGF discussions.
>>>
>>>
>>> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors
>>> to
>>> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome
>>> like
>>> anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a
>>> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of
>>> mutual
>>> interest does something interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR for
>>> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
>>> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or
>>> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality
>>> trends
>>> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change in
>>> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss
>>> over.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
>>> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a
>>> Netmundial
>>> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the
>>> bother, or taint.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net <
>>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali <
>>> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
>>> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
>>> *Cc:* governance
>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>>> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>>>
>>> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
>>> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
>>> discussion on the MAG.
>>>
>>> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
>>> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
>>> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
>>> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
>>> direction as well?
>>>
>>> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
>>> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
>>>
>>> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi Arsene,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been
>>>> said,
>>>> the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the
>>>> IGF's
>>>> work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
>>> don't
>>>> see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this
>>>> isn't
>>>> with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports
>>> and
>>>> such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer
>>> ties
>>>> and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to
>>>> collaborate
>>>> more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise,
>>>> contacts,
>>>> and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
>>>> infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any
>>>> that
>>>> are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
>>> participating
>>>> in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I'm naive, though.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> -Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
>>> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>>>>> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
>>>>> last page of the document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Arsene
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>>>>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>>>>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>>>>> Discussion Document
>>>>> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>>>>> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear MAG members,
>>>>>
>>>>> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>>>>> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
>>>>> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
>>>>> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>>>>> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>>>>> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>>>>> activities/collaboration”.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>>>>> creating this document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>>>>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>>>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>>>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>>>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>>>>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>>>>> ---
>>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>>> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------
>>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>>
>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>>> <
>>>
>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>>> --- To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List help:
>>> <
>>> https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi
>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi
>> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>>
>
>
> ---
> 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/20190213/102fa774/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 13 04:45:52 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Akinremi Peter Taiwo (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:45:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <1db63879-7580-1610-947b-66865624416f@gih.com>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu> <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
 <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com> <1db63879-7580-1610-947b-66865624416f@gih.com>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d0-WNA5YYc-1noPNin5_crgx=wKeESvLUJUCh+oE4WpMOA@mail.gmail.com>

I couldn't agree more with Olivier. And totally in support of the suggested
solution by Mawaki "framework for collaboration" to make it open to other
organization with with little to no cash.

Regards.
Peter.

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 10:07 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com wrote:

> Dear Arsène,
>
> thanks for your kind follow-up. This is very helpful.
> My own views are that if you preach for the multistakeholder model, then
> you need to practice what you preach. The WEF is likely to help with a
> number of things, funding for example, but also to address the sheer lack
> of involvement of business in the IGF multistakeholder model. If this
> collaboration with the WEF is going to address these challenges, then I am
> all for it. The time for old-style militancy and political biases has to be
> relegated to the past when one meeting after another is themed around
> cooperation.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 13/02/2019 07:55, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> As we keep on reflecting.
>
> Here is a question I asked Lynn (Chair of the MAG) on the MAG public list:
>
> “Who requested this collaboration in the first place? Is it the WEF
> that came to the IG or the other way around? If it is the IGF that
> went on seeking WEF's collaboration, was it done through the IGF
> Secretariat or was it a personal initiative of the MAG Chair?”
>
> And here is her answer:
>
> “Re your questions below, the WEF and the IGF have been collaborating
> on various projects for at least 5 years, initially, I believe,
> through the Internet For All project where the (then Chair) and
> Secretariat followed the work of the WEF, and the Internet For All
> project was made known to the NRIs for voluntary participation where
> interests and projects intersected.  There may have been other
> projects at that early point as well (NetMundial Initiative? though
> that didn’t get too far within the IGF); if important we can follow up
> with the secretariat or MAG members from that time, as my recollection
> is certainly not complete nor definitive.
>
> This recent offer of collaboration recognized the complementary nature
> of our communities, and of course any collaboration would be voluntary
> - on all parties.
>
> In my personal opinion, I would always opt for engaging with any
> community that has a stake in the Internet (or applications, services,
> etc.) to help ensure they were getting the most representative view
> possible.  It was in that light that this Collaboration Discussion
> Document was produced.  It was introduced at the MAG Open Consultation
> meeting under the Agenda item: 'Related IG activities', but not
> discussed in any detail, mainly due to time.  It will be scheduled for
> a future MAG meeting once the more pressing items having to do with
> the Call for Workshops is well advanced.
>
> Hope this helps clarify,
>
> Best,
> Lynn”
>
> Let me know what are your thoughts and if this helpful or not.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
>
>
> 2019-02-12 12:39 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com> <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
>
> Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF is
> opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue in
> SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
> Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
> collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the right
> thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this collaboration,
> no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired outcomes.
> Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.
>
> @Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
> eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)
>
> Regards.
> Peter
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> <LB at lucabelli.net> wrote:
>
>
> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
>
> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed
> "collaboration"
> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
>
> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort
> of
> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the rest
> of
> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
> optimal choice...
>
> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work with
> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that
> "Collaboration
> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy
> that
> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
> between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the
> case).
>
> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at
> the
> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is exclusively
> in
> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on the
> other side.
>
> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting
> to
> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not
> with
> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the
> Tunis
> Agendahttps://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0 )
> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather than
> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g of
> the Tunis Agenda)?
>
> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both),
> they
> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
> vassalage.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Luca Belli*, PhD
> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
> School
> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2www.internet-governance.fgv.br
> @1lucabelli
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information
> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of
> the
> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
> email
> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
> of
> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful.
> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by
> mistake.*
>
>
>
>
>
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu> <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com> <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, "arsenebaguma at gmail.com" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net> <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>
> My 2 cents,
>
>
>
> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
> happened.
>
>
> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they
> once were, and they don't like it.
>
>
> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be
> fruitfully
> input into IGF discussions.
>
>
> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors
> to
> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome
> like
> anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a
> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of
> mutual
> interest does something interesting.
>
>
> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR for
> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or
> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality
> trends
> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change in
> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss
> over.
>
>
> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a
> Netmundial
> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the
> bother, or taint.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
> *Cc:* governance
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>
> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
> discussion on the MAG.
>
> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
>
> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
> direction as well?
>
> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
>
> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com> <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Arsene,
>
> Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been
> said,
> the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the
> IGF's
> work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
>
> don't
>
> see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this
> isn't
> with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports
>
> and
>
> such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer
>
> ties
>
> and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to
> collaborate
> more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise,
> contacts,
> and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
> infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any
> that
> are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
>
> participating
>
> in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
>
> Perhaps I'm naive, though.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
>
> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> last page of the document.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org> <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> Discussion Document
> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org> <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org> <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>
> Dear MAG members,
>
> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> activities/collaboration”.
>
> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> creating this document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali> <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international<http://www.rudiinternational.org> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/> <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
>
>
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>
> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali> <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international<http://www.rudiinternational.org> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/> <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> --- 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>
>
> ---
> 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>
>
>
>
> --<https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
> Peter Taiwo Akinremiabout.me/petertaiwoakinremi<https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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>
>
>
> ---
> 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/20190213/5e61e6b5/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 13 05:17:27 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:17:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CAGK4d0-WNA5YYc-1noPNin5_crgx=wKeESvLUJUCh+oE4WpMOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu> <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
 <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1db63879-7580-1610-947b-66865624416f@gih.com> <CAGK4d0-WNA5YYc-1noPNin5_crgx=wKeESvLUJUCh+oE4WpMOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWqor=-KT+rzdqpd4_88hC5jj9C6QcoVBuD0X3Uy8Nmbgg@mail.gmail.com>

Throwing this out here:

What if the WEF is the only entity interested in such kind of
collaboration with the IGF?

Has there been any other organization/group requesting collaboration
that was not welcomed? Can we try this approach which may probably
lead to the creation of a "framework" of some sort? I am sure if the
IGF receives more requests for collaboration, a framework will have
its reason to be created.

Or do we simply do not want any form of collaboration, at all? Are we
against any WEF-related initiatives simply because they are
business/gov related and we are Civil society?

Has the WSF (World Social Forum) requested any form of collaboration?
And this probably also needs to be discussed at some point. WEF is
established, is the WSF established? I haven't heard of it for a
while. Maybe Parminder would be willing to share the latest with
regards the WSF?

2019-02-13 11:45 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <governance at lists.riseup.net>:
> I couldn't agree more with Olivier. And totally in support of the suggested
> solution by Mawaki "framework for collaboration" to make it open to other
> organization with with little to no cash.
>
> Regards.
> Peter.
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 10:07 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Arsène,
>>
>> thanks for your kind follow-up. This is very helpful.
>> My own views are that if you preach for the multistakeholder model, then
>> you need to practice what you preach. The WEF is likely to help with a
>> number of things, funding for example, but also to address the sheer lack
>> of involvement of business in the IGF multistakeholder model. If this
>> collaboration with the WEF is going to address these challenges, then I
>> am
>> all for it. The time for old-style militancy and political biases has to
>> be
>> relegated to the past when one meeting after another is themed around
>> cooperation.
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> On 13/02/2019 07:55, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As we keep on reflecting.
>>
>> Here is a question I asked Lynn (Chair of the MAG) on the MAG public
>> list:
>>
>> “Who requested this collaboration in the first place? Is it the WEF
>> that came to the IG or the other way around? If it is the IGF that
>> went on seeking WEF's collaboration, was it done through the IGF
>> Secretariat or was it a personal initiative of the MAG Chair?”
>>
>> And here is her answer:
>>
>> “Re your questions below, the WEF and the IGF have been collaborating
>> on various projects for at least 5 years, initially, I believe,
>> through the Internet For All project where the (then Chair) and
>> Secretariat followed the work of the WEF, and the Internet For All
>> project was made known to the NRIs for voluntary participation where
>> interests and projects intersected.  There may have been other
>> projects at that early point as well (NetMundial Initiative? though
>> that didn’t get too far within the IGF); if important we can follow up
>> with the secretariat or MAG members from that time, as my recollection
>> is certainly not complete nor definitive.
>>
>> This recent offer of collaboration recognized the complementary nature
>> of our communities, and of course any collaboration would be voluntary
>> - on all parties.
>>
>> In my personal opinion, I would always opt for engaging with any
>> community that has a stake in the Internet (or applications, services,
>> etc.) to help ensure they were getting the most representative view
>> possible.  It was in that light that this Collaboration Discussion
>> Document was produced.  It was introduced at the MAG Open Consultation
>> meeting under the Agenda item: 'Related IG activities', but not
>> discussed in any detail, mainly due to time.  It will be scheduled for
>> a future MAG meeting once the more pressing items having to do with
>> the Call for Workshops is well advanced.
>>
>> Hope this helps clarify,
>>
>> Best,
>> Lynn”
>>
>> Let me know what are your thoughts and if this helpful or not.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>>
>>
>> 2019-02-12 12:39 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>
>> <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF is
>> opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue in
>> SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
>> Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
>> collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the
>> right
>> thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this
>> collaboration,
>> no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired
>> outcomes.
>> Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.
>>
>> @Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
>> eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)
>>
>> Regards.
>> Peter
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> <LB at lucabelli.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
>>
>> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed
>> "collaboration"
>> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
>> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
>> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
>>
>> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
>> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
>> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort
>> of
>> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the rest
>> of
>> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
>> optimal choice...
>>
>> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work with
>> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that
>> "Collaboration
>> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy
>> that
>> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
>> between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the
>> case).
>>
>> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at
>> the
>> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is exclusively
>> in
>> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on the
>> other side.
>>
>> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
>> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting
>> to
>> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not
>> with
>> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
>> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the
>> Tunis
>> Agendahttps://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0
>> )
>> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
>> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather than
>> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
>> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
>> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g of
>> the Tunis Agenda)?
>>
>> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
>> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both),
>> they
>> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
>> vassalage.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Luca Belli*, PhD
>> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
>> School
>> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris
>> 2www.internet-governance.fgv.br
>> @1lucabelli
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
>> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information
>> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of
>> the
>> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
>> email
>> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
>> of
>> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be
>> unlawful.
>> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by
>> mistake.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------- Original Message ---------
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu> <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
>> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com> <mike.oghia at gmail.com>,
>> "arsenebaguma at gmail.com" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>
>> <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>>
>>
>>
>> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
>> happened.
>>
>>
>> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
>> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
>> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they
>> once were, and they don't like it.
>>
>>
>> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
>> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be
>> fruitfully
>> input into IGF discussions.
>>
>>
>> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors
>> to
>> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome
>> like
>> anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a
>> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of
>> mutual
>> interest does something interesting.
>>
>>
>> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR for
>> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
>> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or
>> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality
>> trends
>> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change in
>> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss
>> over.
>>
>>
>> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
>> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a
>> Netmundial
>> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the
>> bother, or taint.
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net
>> <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali
>> <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
>> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
>> *Cc:* governance
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>>
>> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
>> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
>> discussion on the MAG.
>>
>> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
>> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
>>
>> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
>> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
>> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
>> direction as well?
>>
>> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
>> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
>>
>> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>
>> <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi Arsene,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been
>> said,
>> the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the
>> IGF's
>> work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
>>
>> don't
>>
>> see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this
>> isn't
>> with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports
>>
>> and
>>
>> such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer
>>
>> ties
>>
>> and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to
>> collaborate
>> more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise,
>> contacts,
>> and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
>> infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any
>> that
>> are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
>>
>> participating
>>
>> in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
>>
>> Perhaps I'm naive, though.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
>>
>> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>>
>> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
>> last page of the document.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>> Discussion Document
>> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org> <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>> <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>>
>> Dear MAG members,
>>
>> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
>> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
>> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>> activities/collaboration”.
>>
>> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>> creating this document.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>
>> <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi
>> international<http://www.rudiinternational.org>
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>
>> <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> GPG: 523644A0
>>
>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> <
>>
>>
>>
>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>>
>>
>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council
>> Member<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm>
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF
>> MAG<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm>
>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>
>> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>
>> <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi
>> international<http://www.rudiinternational.org>
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>
>> <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>> GPG: 523644A0
>>
>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>> <
>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>>
>>
>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council
>> Member<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm>
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF
>> MAG<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm>
>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>> --- 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>
>>
>> ---
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> --<https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>> Peter Taiwo
>> Akinremiabout.me/petertaiwoakinremi<https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>


-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member

From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng  Wed Feb 13 07:54:43 2019
From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:54:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWqor=-KT+rzdqpd4_88hC5jj9C6QcoVBuD0X3Uy8Nmbgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu> <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
 <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1db63879-7580-1610-947b-66865624416f@gih.com> <CAGK4d0-WNA5YYc-1noPNin5_crgx=wKeESvLUJUCh+oE4WpMOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWqor=-KT+rzdqpd4_88hC5jj9C6QcoVBuD0X3Uy8Nmbgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOz-jXTLc2WvdX1aOxs6Cs1LmWUu_P3WOTuXCE+gh2LJR=_Zkg@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you all for your marvy inputs.
I deeply think there's a misconception somewhere.  Farzaneh, Mawaki and
Michael's submissions point to this.

IGF, WEF, WSF and any of such are  discussion forums / platforms, each with
its participating gov and/or non-gov organizations.  Internet governance
affects all that WEF and WSF and the bodies engaged in them stand for, so
long as they have one or more things the Internet does for or against
them.  There's nothing thoughtless in WEF and WSF discussing IG in their
independent meetings and publishing their consensus views that may be
either reckoned with or discredited by any person/group.  However, if we
all agree (and I think we do) that "*THE IGF IS A GLOBAL MULTISTAKEHOLDER
PLATFORM THAT FACILITATES THE DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES PERTAINING
TO THE INTERNET*" (as stated on IGF's Homepage) then we'll agree that *it'll
be more thoughtful and beneficial for WEF and those other forums to discuss
IG in IGF* whose discussants' activities wittingly or unwittingly impinge
on what WEF's participating bodies do.

So *what I think is more appropriate is advocacy*.  IGF secretariat (NOT
MAG, who only can recommend it) needs to make WEF and other forums
understand and agree that discussing IG under one umbrella certainly will
result in holistic policies and corollaries of best mutual interest.  If my
memory isn't missing something, we had reasoned in this direction sometime
in the past (on this list or on Internet Policy list?).  Why the change in
direction?

Best

CPU

*Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, *Ph.D.

Computer Communication Centre

University of Nigeria, 410001 Nigeria

 We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things,

especially if they're not yielding optimum results.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:17 AM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
wrote:

> Throwing this out here:
>
> What if the WEF is the only entity interested in such kind of
> collaboration with the IGF?
>
> Has there been any other organization/group requesting collaboration
> that was not welcomed? Can we try this approach which may probably
> lead to the creation of a "framework" of some sort? I am sure if the
> IGF receives more requests for collaboration, a framework will have
> its reason to be created.
>
> Or do we simply do not want any form of collaboration, at all? Are we
> against any WEF-related initiatives simply because they are
> business/gov related and we are Civil society?
>
> Has the WSF (World Social Forum) requested any form of collaboration?
> And this probably also needs to be discussed at some point. WEF is
> established, is the WSF established? I haven't heard of it for a
> while. Maybe Parminder would be willing to share the latest with
> regards the WSF?
>
> 2019-02-13 11:45 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <
> governance at lists.riseup.net>:
> > I couldn't agree more with Olivier. And totally in support of the
> suggested
> > solution by Mawaki "framework for collaboration" to make it open to other
> > organization with with little to no cash.
> >
> > Regards.
> > Peter.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 10:07 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Arsène,
> >>
> >> thanks for your kind follow-up. This is very helpful.
> >> My own views are that if you preach for the multistakeholder model, then
> >> you need to practice what you preach. The WEF is likely to help with a
> >> number of things, funding for example, but also to address the sheer
> lack
> >> of involvement of business in the IGF multistakeholder model. If this
> >> collaboration with the WEF is going to address these challenges, then I
> >> am
> >> all for it. The time for old-style militancy and political biases has to
> >> be
> >> relegated to the past when one meeting after another is themed around
> >> cooperation.
> >> Kindest regards,
> >>
> >> Olivier
> >>
> >> On 13/02/2019 07:55, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> As we keep on reflecting.
> >>
> >> Here is a question I asked Lynn (Chair of the MAG) on the MAG public
> >> list:
> >>
> >> “Who requested this collaboration in the first place? Is it the WEF
> >> that came to the IG or the other way around? If it is the IGF that
> >> went on seeking WEF's collaboration, was it done through the IGF
> >> Secretariat or was it a personal initiative of the MAG Chair?”
> >>
> >> And here is her answer:
> >>
> >> “Re your questions below, the WEF and the IGF have been collaborating
> >> on various projects for at least 5 years, initially, I believe,
> >> through the Internet For All project where the (then Chair) and
> >> Secretariat followed the work of the WEF, and the Internet For All
> >> project was made known to the NRIs for voluntary participation where
> >> interests and projects intersected.  There may have been other
> >> projects at that early point as well (NetMundial Initiative? though
> >> that didn’t get too far within the IGF); if important we can follow up
> >> with the secretariat or MAG members from that time, as my recollection
> >> is certainly not complete nor definitive.
> >>
> >> This recent offer of collaboration recognized the complementary nature
> >> of our communities, and of course any collaboration would be voluntary
> >> - on all parties.
> >>
> >> In my personal opinion, I would always opt for engaging with any
> >> community that has a stake in the Internet (or applications, services,
> >> etc.) to help ensure they were getting the most representative view
> >> possible.  It was in that light that this Collaboration Discussion
> >> Document was produced.  It was introduced at the MAG Open Consultation
> >> meeting under the Agenda item: 'Related IG activities', but not
> >> discussed in any detail, mainly due to time.  It will be scheduled for
> >> a future MAG meeting once the more pressing items having to do with
> >> the Call for Workshops is well advanced.
> >>
> >> Hope this helps clarify,
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Lynn”
> >>
> >> Let me know what are your thoughts and if this helpful or not.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Arsene
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2019-02-12 12:39 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com
> >
> >> <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF
> is
> >> opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue
> in
> >> SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
> >> Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
> >> collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the
> >> right
> >> thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this
> >> collaboration,
> >> no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired
> >> outcomes.
> >> Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.
> >>
> >> @Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
> >> eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> <LB at lucabelli.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
> >>
> >> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed
> >> "collaboration"
> >> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
> >> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
> >> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
> >>
> >> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
> >> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
> >> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort
> >> of
> >> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the rest
> >> of
> >> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
> >> optimal choice...
> >>
> >> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work with
> >> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that
> >> "Collaboration
> >> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy
> >> that
> >> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
> >> between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the
> >> case).
> >>
> >> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at
> >> the
> >> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is exclusively
> >> in
> >> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on
> the
> >> other side.
> >>
> >> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
> >> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting
> >> to
> >> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not
> >> with
> >> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
> >> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the
> >> Tunis
> >> Agendahttps://
> www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0
> <http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267%7C0>
> >> )
> >> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
> >> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather than
> >> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
> >> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
> >> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g
> of
> >> the Tunis Agenda)?
> >>
> >> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
> >> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both),
> >> they
> >> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
> >> vassalage.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *Luca Belli*, PhD
> >> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
> >> School
> >> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris
> >> 2www.internet-governance.fgv.br
> >> @1lucabelli
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
> >> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information
> >> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of
> >> the
> >> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> >> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
> >> email
> >> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
> >> of
> >> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be
> >> unlawful.
> >> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by
> >> mistake.*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------- Original Message ---------
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
> >> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
> >> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu> <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> >> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
> >> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com> <mike.oghia at gmail.com>,
> >> "arsenebaguma at gmail.com" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>
> >> <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> >> <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> >>
> >> My 2 cents,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
> >> happened.
> >>
> >>
> >> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
> >> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
> >> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they
> >> once were, and they don't like it.
> >>
> >>
> >> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
> >> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be
> >> fruitfully
> >> input into IGF discussions.
> >>
> >>
> >> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors
> >> to
> >> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome
> >> like
> >> anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a
> >> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of
> >> mutual
> >> interest does something interesting.
> >>
> >>
> >> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR
> for
> >> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
> >> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or
> >> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality
> >> trends
> >> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change
> in
> >> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss
> >> over.
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
> >> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a
> >> Netmundial
> >> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the
> >> bother, or taint.
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net
> >> <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali
> >> <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> >> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
> >> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
> >> *Cc:* governance
> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
> >> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
> >>
> >> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
> >> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
> >> discussion on the MAG.
> >>
> >> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
> >> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
> >>
> >> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
> >> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
> >> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
> >> direction as well?
> >>
> >> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
> >> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
> >>
> >> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>
> >> <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Hi Arsene,
> >>
> >> Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been
> >> said,
> >> the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the
> >> IGF's
> >> work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
> >>
> >> don't
> >>
> >> see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this
> >> isn't
> >> with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer
> >>
> >> ties
> >>
> >> and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to
> >> collaborate
> >> more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise,
> >> contacts,
> >> and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
> >> infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any
> >> that
> >> are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
> >>
> >> participating
> >>
> >> in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
> >>
> >> Perhaps I'm naive, though.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> -Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
> >>
> >> governance at lists.riseup.net>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> >> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
> >>
> >> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> >> last page of the document.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Arsene
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> >> <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> >> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> >> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> >> Discussion Document
> >> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org> <
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> >> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
> >> <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
> >>
> >> Dear MAG members,
> >>
> >> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> >> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> >> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> >> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> >> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> >> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> >> activities/collaboration”.
> >>
> >> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> >> creating this document.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Lynn
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------------------
> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>
> >> <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi
> >> international<http://www.rudiinternational.org>
> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>
> >> <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> >> GPG: 523644A0
> >>
> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> >> <
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >>
> >>
> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council
> >> Member<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm>
> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF
> >> MAG<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm>
> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> >> ---
> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
> >> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> >>
> >> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
> >>
> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ------------------------
> >> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>
> >> <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi
> >> international<http://www.rudiinternational.org>
> >> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>
> >> <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> >> GPG: 523644A0
> >>
> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> >> <
> >>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >>
> >>
> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council
> >> Member<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm>
> >> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF
> >> MAG<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm>
> >> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> >> --- 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>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> 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>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --<
> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb
> >
> >> <
> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb
> >
> >> Peter Taiwo
> >> Akinremiabout.me/petertaiwoakinremi<
> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb
> >
> >> <
> https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> 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>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> ---
> 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/20190213/06e495af/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 13 15:28:35 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:28:35 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org> <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC1s=rOpcaNkqgH5LL8TqFZQn7mQszGBzv86Fc8mBxWpw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Arsene,


   1. These are thoughts as someone who was on the Multistakeholder
   Advisory Group (MAG) previously and have some historical and institutional
   knowledge of the context.
   2. The MAG had been advocating for openness and transparency in being
   part of the process on collaboration with stakeholders including but not
   limited to  the World Economic Forum (WEF).
   3. There is a need to correct the "assertion that the WEF was singled
   out" nothing could be further from the truth. I am going to suggest to the
   MAG Chair to aside from having her blog to organise virtual town hall
   sessions to ensure that people can ask her things. Part of the past
   criticisms and recommendations towards improving the IGF was to reach out
   to diverse organisations and stakeholders to ensure that there is enhanced
   collaboration and communication and this is not limited to the WEF.
   4. As you know the Internet Governance Form (IGF) is mandated by the UN
   General Assembly Resolution where the Secretariat collaborates with the MAG
   along with a host nation to host the IGF and also with the input of the
   community devise thematic concepts that the global community finds relevant
   so that the call for workshop proposals are made which are graded according
   to a criteria by the MAG and shortlisted.
   5. When these Workshops are facilitated, they each have reports which
   make it to the Chair's Report, along with transcripts. Recommendations
   garnered are consolidated and available to the Public, that is civil
   society, governments and private sector.
   6. Whilst the IGF is a neutral place setting, there have been numerous
   recommendations that have been adopted by organisations, governments,
   private sector and civil society. This has also led to the birthing of
   alliances, new interest groups and enhanced collaboration.
   7. We live in a global borderless world where the internet is
   "everyone's" and no one can claim dominance on the subject even though from
   time to time you will see dog pissing contests where each one wants to mark
   their territory.
   8. There are so many multiple forums, platforms that all want to talk
   about the internet and development whether these are E Commerce Rules
   negotiations within WTO or smart economies in UNCTAD, Regulations within
   the ITU, gTLD and WHOIS policies within ICANN, economic development in WEF,
   intellectual property rights in WIPO or financing as per the Addis Ababa
   Agenda.
   9. You see nations, regional governments developing regulation and laws
   that impact basic things like privacy, cyber security or taxation to name a
   few.
   10. All these forums and many more have a place to exist within the
   ecosystem. Now more than ever, one can see the increasing importance of the
   work done by the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network to explore the
   conflicts and juncture of some of these collaborations and identifying
   bottlenecks.
   11. As for the WEF, it is one of the few platforms where you will
   literally see Heads of State or Prime Ministers attend and some even change
   their approach to governance. For example, NZ Prime Minister Arden who was
   literally impacted from a WEF session and changed her government's approach
   including organising a review of the laws and getting NZ Treasury to
   redefine indicators on wellness based on outcomes from the WEF and drawing
   from OECD Studies and Reports.
   12. We cannot ordinarily change the mechanism in which the WEF organises
   its sessions although we can offer comments unless you have people within
   changing the system but the fact that they are reaching out is a testament
   to the success of the IGF.
   13. We have had to push for MAG Chair to include the WEF prior to
   participation which is what she is literally doing in that she has sent the
   draft for the MAG to comment on and in turn where members can involve their
   constituencies or organisations to input.
   14. There is a member of the MAG from the WEF although to be fair
   individuals are MAG members in their personal capacity.
   15. As for the Draft, I am content with the document and questions.


Sala
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 2:14 AM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> last page of the document.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> Discussion Document
> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>
> Dear MAG members,
>
> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> activities/collaboration”.
>
> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> creating this document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>


-- 

*Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T*

*P. O. Box 17862*

*Suva*


*Republic of Fiji*

*Cell: +679 7656770; *

*Home: +679 3362003*
*Twitter: @SalanietaT*




*"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the
greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190214/b9843932/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Feb  6 13:14:31 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:14:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Private Sector Efforts to Curtail
 Government Hacking of Civilian Targets
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2ELPAExj2Wdsz2-gpB_DZTgumgDFJWxJGzMTBdUkjQrw@mail.gmail.com>

A couple of years ago, after Snowden, it was all about surveillance. Now
it's about security.

<https://isoc.live/10886/livestream>Today, *Wednesday February 6 2019*
at *1:30pm
ET* (18:30 UTC), a panel co-organized by the *Center for Democracy and
Technology <https://cdt.org/>*, the* Internet Governance Lab at American
University <https://internetgovernancelab.org/>*, and the* Cyber Governance
and Policy Center at the University of Oklahoma
<http://www.ou.edu/cis/sponsored_programs/cyber-governance-and-policy-center>*,
will discuss private and multi-stakeholder efforts to curtail government
hacking of civilian targets. Speakers: *Laura DeNardis*, Co-director,
Internet Governance Lab, American University; *Amie Stepanovich*, U.S.
Policy Manager & Global Policy Counsel, Access Now; *Amanda Craig Deckard*,
Senior Cybersecurity Strategist, Microsoft; *Eric Wenger*, Director,
Cybersecurity and Privacy Policy, Global Government Affairs, Cisco; *Greg
Nojeim*, Director, Freedom, Security & Technology Project, Center for
Democracy & Technology. Moderator: *Mark Raymond*, Director, Cyber
Governance and Policy Center, University of Oklahoma.

*LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/govhacking/
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/govhacking/>*

*INFO: https://internetgovernancelab.org/events/2019/2/6/panel-discussion-on-private-sector-efforts-to-curtail-government-hacking-of-civilian-targets
<https://internetgovernancelab.org/events/2019/2/6/panel-discussion-on-private-sector-efforts-to-curtail-government-hacking-of-civilian-targets>*

*TWITTER: @InternetGov https://bit.ly/InternetGov
<https://bit.ly/InternetGov>*
*#govhacking https://bit.ly/govhacking <https://bit.ly/govhacking>*


*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/10886/



-

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190206/b4db9da0/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 13 15:33:27 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:33:27 +1200
Subject: [governance] Conclusion of the High Level Panel (HLP) on Digital
 Cooperation Consultations
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAMb0SSUXHjNcoukwn6+PF4PUkkjGnz-mKUcBtJtAZXeQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The United Nations Secretary General had convened a High Level Panel on
Digital Cooperation where consultations came to a close. See below:

Dear Salanieta,

On behalf of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation, we want to thank
you for your contribution to the consultation phase of our process, which
has just come to a close.

The results of our engagement efforts were extremely rich: we received over 150
written contributions <https://digitalcooperation.org/responses/>, visited
5 global technology hubs, participated in over 60 digital policy forums,
and held hundreds of bilateral meetings with representatives from
government, civil society, industry and academia. Based on the first-hand
feedback and suggestions we received, we identified 9 “enablers” of digital
cooperation
<https://digitalcooperation.org/meeting-summary-consultation-insights-next-steps/>,
which the Panel discussed in-depth during their second face-to-face meeting
on 21-22 January in Geneva.

Now, the Panel is drawing on the insights and ideas we heard from you and
other stakeholders to draft its final report, which will focus on improving
digital cooperation in the following areas:

•    Inclusiveness
•    Digital public goods
•    Implementation of values and principles
•    Governance
•    Safety and security
•    Data

In the coming weeks, the Secretariat and Panel members will develop an
advanced draft of the report before meeting again in the spring. In March,
we will test the draft recommendations with stakeholders before the final
report is released in June 2019. We invite you to attend our regular town
hall meetings <https://digitalcooperation.org/events/> on the first Monday
of each month for further updates.

We hope that you will continue to be involved in the process moving
forward. Please let us know if and how you would like to contribute.



Sincerely,


Jovan Kurbalija
Co-Lead, Secretariat for the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation

-- 

*Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T*

*P. O. Box 17862*

*Suva*


*Republic of Fiji*

*Cell: +679 7656770; *

*Home: +679 3362003*
*Twitter: @SalanietaT*




*"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the
greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190214/528c488b/attachment.htm>

From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu  Wed Feb 13 15:49:15 2019
From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:49:15 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu>
 <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
 <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <783F98FB-D96B-4989-9835-BB39092F4804@post.harvard.edu>

I do not notice that the MAG chair answered the question, as to which side, and specifically who, initiated.

David


> On Feb 13, 2019, at 1:55 AM, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> As we keep on reflecting.
> 
> Here is a question I asked Lynn (Chair of the MAG) on the MAG public list:
> 
> “Who requested this collaboration in the first place? Is it the WEF
> that came to the IG or the other way around? If it is the IGF that
> went on seeking WEF's collaboration, was it done through the IGF
> Secretariat or was it a personal initiative of the MAG Chair?”
> 
> And here is her answer:
> 
> “Re your questions below, the WEF and the IGF have been collaborating
> on various projects for at least 5 years, initially, I believe,
> through the Internet For All project where the (then Chair) and
> Secretariat followed the work of the WEF, and the Internet For All
> project was made known to the NRIs for voluntary participation where
> interests and projects intersected.  There may have been other
> projects at that early point as well (NetMundial Initiative? though
> that didn’t get too far within the IGF); if important we can follow up
> with the secretariat or MAG members from that time, as my recollection
> is certainly not complete nor definitive.
> 
> This recent offer of collaboration recognized the complementary nature
> of our communities, and of course any collaboration would be voluntary
> - on all parties.
> 
> In my personal opinion, I would always opt for engaging with any
> community that has a stake in the Internet (or applications, services,
> etc.) to help ensure they were getting the most representative view
> possible.  It was in that light that this Collaboration Discussion
> Document was produced.  It was introduced at the MAG Open Consultation
> meeting under the Agenda item: 'Related IG activities', but not
> discussed in any detail, mainly due to time.  It will be scheduled for
> a future MAG meeting once the more pressing items having to do with
> the Call for Workshops is well advanced.
> 
> Hope this helps clarify,
> 
> Best,
> Lynn”
> 
> Let me know what are your thoughts and if this helpful or not.
> 
> Regards,
> Arsene
> 
> 
> 
> 2019-02-12 12:39 UTC+02:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>:
>> Digging down the history path is a good thing. It's also true that WEF is
>> opposite of openness and transparency, but how long should we continue in
>> SILO. It's a question that needs to be truly answered by everyone of us.
>> Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating for WEF, but exploring
>> collaborative opportunities that can influence stakeholders to do the right
>> thing in a right way. There might be the motive behind this collaboration,
>> no doubt, but I believe collaborative efforts can lead to desired outcomes.
>> Maybe we could suggest the best way to go about it to the MAG.
>> 
>> @Parminder, I just realized that you were the one I met during the
>> eCommerce Week. We should have gone to the coffee joint :)
>> 
>> Regards.
>> Peter
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:33 PM <LB at lucabelli.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree almost entirely with Lee's 2 cents with one notable exception.
>>> 
>>> While NetMundial Initiative miserably failed, the proposed
>>> "collaboration"
>>> between IGF and WEF will stay, once it is "approved" (I do not know by
>>> whom, as the MAG is a mere programme committee to which the IGF mandate
>>> does NOT give such authority, but this is another story)
>>> 
>>> The WEF-NMI partnership miserably failed because NMI (itself created
>>> basically by WEF and one other person) failed. On the contrary, the IGF
>>> will stay for at least the rest of the current mandate. Should any sort
>>> of
>>> cooperation be "approved", this will also last for - at least - the rest
>>> of
>>> the mandate. Given the current approval rate of WEF, this may not be an
>>> optimal choice...
>>> 
>>> IMHO, every IGF participant is totally free to participate and work with
>>> the WEF but equating this kind of personal engagement to othe fact that
>>> "Collaboration
>>> between the [IGF and WEF] is already underway" is a deliberate fallacy
>>> that
>>> sceptics may think only aims at present the institutional cooperation
>>> between IGF  and WEF as something already exisitng (which is not the
>>> case).
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, the same sceptics may also think that - as it happened at
>>> the
>>> time of the WEF-NMI fiasco - the proposed "collaboration" is exclusively
>>> in
>>> the interest of the WEF and the person promoting the collaboration on the
>>> other side.
>>> 
>>> Although one should aknowledge that at least, now, we are spared the
>>> "mother of all bottom-up initiatives" rhetoric, it would be interesting
>>> to
>>> know why is the MAG chair proposing this "coperation" with WEF and not
>>> with
>>> other entitie. And on what basis is this kind of special cooperation
>>> created knowing that the IGF mandate (clearly defined para 72 of the
>>> Tunis
>>> Agenda
>>> https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2267|0 )
>>> does not mention such possibility? And most importantly, why is the MAG
>>> (chair) self-attributing this new cooperation creation power rather than
>>> focusing on a the implementation of what the IGF mandate asks and that
>>> whoudl propably give more visibility and credibility to the entite IGF
>>> process i.e. "where appropriate, make recommendations." (see para 72.g of
>>> the Tunis Agenda)?
>>> 
>>> If MAG members started to read the IGF mandate or the contributions
>>> received during the IGF stock-taking consultations (or ideally both),
>>> they
>>> may find an ample range of ideas to strengthen the IGF other than WEF
>>> vassalage.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Luca Belli*, PhD
>>> Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law
>>> School
>>> Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
>>> www.internet-governance.fgv.br
>>> @1lucabelli
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
>>> *This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information
>>> that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of
>>> the
>>> addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>>> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this
>>> email
>>> or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents
>>> of
>>> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be
>>> unlawful.
>>> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by
>>> mistake.*
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------- Original Message ---------
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>>> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>>> From: "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>> Date: 2/11/19 12:55 pm
>>> To: "Michael J. Oghia" <mike.oghia at gmail.com>, "arsenebaguma at gmail.com" <
>>> arsenebaguma at gmail.com>, "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>> 
>>> My 2 cents,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As Parminder notes there is a history here we cannot pretend never
>>> happened.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Still, being even more cynical than Parminder ( if that is possible ; )
>>> there is a reason WEF is circling back around IGF now - billionaires
>>> hoarding the world's wealth are not being treated as glamorously as they
>>> once were, and they don't like it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> And - yes WEF (staffers & consultants) are quality folks and do produce
>>> useful and interesting data and reports, some of which could be
>>> fruitfully
>>> input into IGF discussions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So I see it like this, a small wef collaboration as humble contributors
>>> to
>>> - coalitions - proposing workshop topics  for future IGFs are welcome
>>> like
>>> anyone else.  Which they can do their own PR around if they want, once a
>>> particular panel/topic is accepted by MAG, or a dynamic coalition of
>>> mutual
>>> interest does something interesting.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> But a prospective Big WEF collaboration with IGF to trade enhanced PR for
>>> IGF with our collective help glossing over my cynical point , is just a
>>> cheap sell-out of the IGF mission.  And will not be credible or
>>> effective anyway given prior history, and current global inequality
>>> trends
>>> which WEF institutionally is stuck on wrong side of - without a change in
>>> its mission and approach, and which an IGF collaboration could not gloss
>>> over.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Maybe that's 3 cents, but to summarize, if WEFers can humble themselves
>>> sufficiently to pitch in and help out through IGF, great. But a
>>> Netmundial
>>> v2.0 WEF/IGF thing will inevitably flop like 1.0  and not be worth the
>>> bother, or taint.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net <
>>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Arsène Tungali <
>>> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2019 10:25:36 AM
>>> *To:* Michael J. Oghia
>>> *Cc:* governance
>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum
>>> (WEF) Collaboration Discussion Document
>>> 
>>> Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts here, this thread is mostly
>>> for your information as well as to see what members think about this
>>> discussion on the MAG.
>>> 
>>> My impression so far is that many of the reactions here are mostly
>>> turning on the side of WHY the WEF?
>>> 
>>> I would like to suggest us to also think on the "WHY NOT"? Is there
>>> anything fundamental that is wrong with the WEF that would endanger
>>> any possible collaboration with the IGF? Can we think on that
>>> direction as well?
>>> 
>>> Are there other organizations you feel would be problematic should
>>> they seek any formal form of collaboration with the IGF?
>>> 
>>> 2019-02-11 17:03 UTC+02:00, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi Arsene,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for sharing this with us. In line with what has already been
>>>> said,
>>>> the WEF and its networks are free to participate in any part of the
>>>> IGF's
>>>> work (intersessional activities, organising workshops, etc.). Thus, I
>>> don't
>>>> see why there needs to be any kind of formal arrangement – and this
>>>> isn't
>>>> with regards to Davos, by the way. I'm thinking here about the reports
>>> and
>>>> such the WEF publishes. In general, I usually welcome calls for closer
>>> ties
>>>> and collaboration; however, I think that if the WEF wants to
>>>> collaborate
>>>> more closely with the IGF, they should see how their expertise,
>>>> contacts,
>>>> and donor networks can better support the IGF's existing mechanisms and
>>>> infrastructure. Even looking at the recommendations, I don't see any
>>>> that
>>>> are not just as applicable to any other stakeholders already
>>> participating
>>>> in the IGF, so why make any special exception?
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps I'm naive, though.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> -Michael
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <
>>> governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>>>>> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
>>>>> last page of the document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Arsene
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>>>>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>>>>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>>>>> Discussion Document
>>>>> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>>>>> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear MAG members,
>>>>> 
>>>>> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>>>>> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
>>>>> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
>>>>> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>>>>> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>>>>> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>>>>> activities/collaboration”.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>>>>> creating this document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>>>>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>>>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>>>>> <
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>>>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>>>>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>>>>> ---
>>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>>> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ------------------------
>>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>> 
>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
>>> <
>>> 
>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
>>> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
>>> --- To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List help:
>>> <
>>> https://riseup.net/lists>
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>> Peter Taiwo Akinremi
>> about.me/petertaiwoakinremi
>> <https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
> 
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
> 
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>


From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 13 17:12:23 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:12:23 +1200
Subject: [governance] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
 Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <783F98FB-D96B-4989-9835-BB39092F4804@post.harvard.edu>
References: <8563cdda3258466785c4bf8b3235e5c6@syr.edu> <20190211123240.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.559c5a5f26.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
 <CAGK4d09-Qum_Uyb7RA4US-Oi9D5W9ur=339BO=kuvEnuFNsaZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWoEhx=7iriNGgmo_2apTiSi71C-ZDwAC9kxk2MaiA_o4A@mail.gmail.com> <783F98FB-D96B-4989-9835-BB39092F4804@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAYgKc_xQ0_StTNw5ivWSeBZu3sox1gTRVngorvMqbPJA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:49 AM <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:

> I do not notice that the MAG chair answered the question, as to which
> side, and specifically who, initiated.
>
> David
>


   1. The  MAG Chair had been invited to previous World Economic Forums
   before to speak. The MAG would usually be informed after the fact. The
   invitation would go directly to her in her individual and personal capacity
   but she would report back to the MAG.
   2. It was on a MAG call that I had asked her to include and involve the
   wider MAG to ensure diversity of input.
   3. The proposal for collaboration is not about the merger of the IGF and
   the WEF it is simply understanding that these are two completely different
   platforms as CPU articulated but seeing some level of *syncing issues*.
   4. As for who initiated the collaboration, it is unknown but the WEF
   like many others have been in IGFs as a participant etc.
   5. There is a MAG member who is from WEF although in their individual
   capacity now.

Sala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190214/246840f3/attachment.htm>

From milton at gatech.edu  Wed Feb 20 09:04:02 2019
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 14:04:02 +0000
Subject: [governance] Report on IPv6: Get ready for a mixed Internet world
Message-ID:  <BYAPR07MB45654FCFD56799CBA97CAED4A17D0@BYAPR07MB4565.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>






Internet Governance Alert







Report on IPv6: Get ready for a mixed Internet world<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=b46d6c6a97&e=c98d2e287c>
By Brenden Kuerbis on Feb 20, 2019 02:00 am

Today the Internet Governance Project published a new report indicating that the transition to a new Internet standard may get stuck somewhere between the old and the new. The data communications protocol supporting the Internet (IPv4) is almost 40 years old, and its 32-bit address space is too small for the global Internet. A new, […]
The post Report on IPv6: Get ready for a mixed Internet world<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=68a8cb1edb&e=c98d2e287c> appeared first on Internet Governance Project<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=caf33d260b&e=c98d2e287c>.

Whois disclosure requests: Getting the facts<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=eee300af65&e=c98d2e287c>
By Milton Mueller on Feb 19, 2019 03:17 pm

The ICANN policy process for bringing Whois into compliance with privacy law has just about reached the end of its first phase (we will report more on that when it releases the final report). The next phase will focus on what is sometimes called “access” but is more accurately described as the problem of how […]
The post Whois disclosure requests: Getting the facts<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=ee1946bdd3&e=c98d2e287c> appeared first on Internet Governance Project<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=a05a8ca14b&e=c98d2e287c>.




READ MORE<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=7b8a5ac040&e=c98d2e287c>



Recent Articles:
IGP White Paper: Understanding Russia’s “National Internet”<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=268d5233db&e=c98d2e287c>
Cryptocurrency: A disruptive technology in need of innovative governance<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=36f64dad08&e=c98d2e287c>
China’s World Internet Conference: Continuing to push for cyber-norms<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=a72e5dda8c&e=c98d2e287c>
Another Facebook privacy scandal you have never heard of!<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=2618b860b4&e=c98d2e287c>
Is there hope for IPv6?<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=dbf71fcc46&e=c98d2e287c>




[https://gallery.mailchimp.com/be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c/images/afa74a59-8bca-46c3-90b5-c7855e8e069c.png]





[https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/outline-light-twitter-48.png]<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/track/click?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=062f320f03&e=c98d2e287c>









Copyright © 2019 Internet Governance Project, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Our mailing address is:
Internet Governance Project
685, Cherry StreeT NW
Atlanta, Ga 30313

Add us to your address book<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/vcard?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=4377131903>


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/profile?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=4377131903&e=c98d2e287c> or unsubscribe from this list<https://internetgovernance.us18.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&id=4377131903&e=c98d2e287c&c=cf19e976b2>.

[Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp]<http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=be001c22ec8bec5d0a255823c&afl=1>








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190220/c28b15c9/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Feb 21 12:31:07 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 12:31:07 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: OpenGov and CivicTech Online Conference
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk30X70K1Osz=U=WXmxe_8M+HO8EwDnFRAPcnjcRYh0DDA@mail.gmail.com>

Just starting. Qiqochat is something I have long suggested to the IGF-USA
and other conveners as some thing that might be used to get around travel
limitations. Essentially there is a lobby, which is a webpage + zoom call,
and a bunch of "tables" which are also zoom calls. Each table has an
associated etherpad.  If you are in the lobby you can see who is at each
table, and jump from one to another. I'm going to cherry pick a few
sessions for the livestream. Hopefully a few more will be recorded and I'll
restream them later. Actual participation does cost $3, since it uses the
zoom api, which is not free.



[image: livestream]Today, *Thursday February 21 2019*, from *12:30pm-3:30pm
ET* (17:30-20:30 UTC) the *2019 OpenGov and CivicTech Online Conference
<https://qiqochat.com/e/civictech>* is convened – a multitrack event with
the theme: “*What are the challenges and opportunities you see in civic
tech and/or opengov in 2019?*“. Based on the *QiqoChat
<https://qiqochat.com/> *platform (“Quality In, Quality Out” ) this
fast-moving conference utilizes a number of P2P communication tools such as
Zoom, Slack, Etherpad, Google Drive and more. Attendees easily move between
virtual ‘tables’ to participate. Portions of the event will be webcast live
on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety>.*

*View on Livestream: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/civictechlive
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/civictechlive>*
*Agenda: https://bit.ly/ogctlive <https://bit.ly/ogctlive>*
*Participate: https://qiqochat.com/e/civictech
<https://qiqochat.com/e/civictech>*
*TWITTER: #civictechlive https://bit.ly/civictechlive
<https://bit.ly/civictechlive>*


https://isoc.live/10913/



-

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190221/6d51df46/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Feb 25 13:11:03 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:11:03 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: ICANN and the New Top-Level Domains
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3j=PvvnJRWqn0nKen2bwTo2sHF6e+eCUOqvL=iEKPFLQ@mail.gmail.com>

Interdisciplinary effort produces all star line-up! There are two panels :
1) Trademark Protections in the New gTLDs 2) “Walled Gardens:” Should gTLDs
Become Private Platforms?

[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/au-icann>Today, *Monday
February 25 2019* at *1:30pm ET* (18:30 UTC) the *American University
Washington College of Law <https://www.wcl.american.edu/>*, the *American
University School of Communications <https://www.american.edu/soc/>*, the
*Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property*
<https://www.wcl.american.edu/impact/initiatives-programs/pijip/>, and
the *Internet
Governance Lab <https://internetgovernancelab.org/>* present a
mini-conference - *ICANN and the New Top-Level Domains
<https://www.wcl.american.edu/impact/initiatives-programs/pijip/events/icann-and-the-new-top-level-domains/>*
in
Washington DC. Participants will consider the impact of the recent addition
of 1200+ new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) on the rights of IP owners,
domain name registrants, and the public, and on the architecture of the
internet. Speakers include: *Michael Karanicolas*, University of
Toronto; *Brian
King*, MarkMonitor; *Rebecca Tushne*t, Harvard Law School; *Brian
Winterfeldt*, Winterfeldt IP Group; *Mary Wong*, ICANN; *Becky Burr*, ICANN
Board & Neustar; *Sarah Deutsch*, ICANN Board; *Kathy Kleiman*, Center for
Information Technology, Princeton University; *Jeff Neuman*, Com
Laude/Valideus; and *Mitch Stoltz*, EFF.

*VIEW ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/1zt-hfwCV0Q
<https://youtu.be/1zt-hfwCV0Q>*

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/au-icann
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/au-icann> (AI Captions)*

*AGENDA: https://bit.ly/auicann <https://bit.ly/auicann>*

*TWITTER: #ICANN + @AUWCL http://bit.ly/2BL7wbR <http://bit.ly/2BL7wbR>*


*Permalink*:
https://isoc.live/10930/



-

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190225/06e92e81/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Feb 26 10:50:53 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:50:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_ISOC_Nigeria_Webinar_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98The_Internet_as_a_force_for_social_good_=E2=80=93_Avoi?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ding_Internet_shutdowns_in_Africa=E2=80=99?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1PjS5OBqdP2bUvwMej=iH=Ct=QhwYkGj_w=aaGhZv6Kw@mail.gmail.com>

A mildly edited version of this very positive session from a couple of
weeks back.


[image: livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/isocngwebinar>
Today, *Tuesday February 26 2019* at *11am ET* (16:00 UTC) the *Internet
Society Livestream Channel <https://lisoc.live/>* presents '*The Internet
as a force for social good – Avoiding Internet shutdowns in Africa
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/isocngwebinar/>*'. This is a
recording of the* Internet Society Nigeria Chapter <https://isoc.ng/>* webinar
on February 14 2019. After an initial presentation by *Chuks Okoriekwe*,
Research Fellow, African Academic Network on Internet Policy (AANOIP) '*The
Understated Value of an Undisputed Internet – Ending Internet shutdowns in
Africa*', a panel of seasoned veterans (*Nnenna Nwakanma*, *Sunday Folayan*
, *Boye Adegoke* ) in the Nigerian Internet Community were joined by *Berhan
Taye* of AccessNow and ISOC Zimbabwe's Lisa Nyamadzawo. The conversation
covered issues around Internet Shutdown, Fake News and Hate Speech.
Additional speakers were *Salvation Alibor* and *Tomiwa Ilori*. The webinar
is intended to sensitize participants and ISOC members of the implication
and current trends on Internet shutdowns across Africa and the way it will
impact the freedom of the expression, access to information and other
related economic and human rights activities that has its operational base
on the Internet. It also tried to identify necessary
legislations/conventions/ policies within the context of Africa / Nigeria
that can or cannot guarantee the open accessibility of the Internet. It
also explored how to balance and engage the competing rights of
stakeholders and the state actors. The webinar is intended to sensitize
participants and ISOC members of the implication and current trends on
Internet shutdowns across Africa and the way it will impact the freedom of
the expression, access to information and other related economic and human
rights activities that has its operational base on the Internet. It also
tried to identify necessary legislations/conventions/ policies within the
context of Africa / Nigeria that can or cannot guarantee the open
accessibility of the Internet. It also explored how to balance and engage
the competing rights of stakeholders and the state actors. The Session was
moderated by *Bukola Fawole-Oronti* and *Dewole Ajao* of ISOC Nigeria
Chapter, while the organization was done by the Programmes Secretary of the
ISOC Nigerian Chapter - *Caleb Ogundele*.

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/isocngwebinar
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/isocngwebinar>*

*TWITTER: @isocngchapter #keepiton http://bit.ly/2UawIiW
<http://bit.ly/2UawIiW>*


*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/10935/



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190226/18ccce05/attachment.htm>

From LB at lucabelli.net  Wed Feb 27 04:23:17 2019
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 02:23:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] CfP  Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax
 Avoidance
Message-ID: <20190227022317.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.22d63f306a.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>

 Dear colleagues,
 
Please, find below the Call for Papers for a special issue of the Computer Law & Security Review, dedicated to Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.
 
The CfP celebrates 5 years of activities of the UN Internet Governance Forum Coalition on Platform Responsibility and includes the organisation of a workshop for feedback and discussion of the submitted papers that will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in July 2019.
 
Please, feel fre eto share this CfP through your networks
Best Regards
Luca
 
CfP page https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-law-and-security-review/call-for-papers/platform-values-conflicting-rights-artificial-intelligence
 
Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.
 
Purpose:
 
 The purpose of this call is to gather a diverse range of analytical perspectives on the multiform notion of platform values. The special issue resulting from this call will be presented in a dedicated workshop at the IGF 2019, hosted by the Government of Germany in Berlin from 25 to 29 November 2019. To guarantee that authors receive the most extensive feedback on their contributions, an additional workshop for feedback and paper discussion will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 27 July 2019 (see the timeframe at the bottom of this call). The authors of the papers selected after the first round of reviews will be invited to come - at their own expenses - to present their draft papers at the workshop.
 
 Description:
 
 Platform regulations are having enormous impact on the lives of several billion individuals, and this impact is poised to increase over the next decade. This special issue aims at exploring three of the most crucial points of contention with regard to values underlying the operation of digital platforms: the dispute resolution mechanisms they design and the ways such mechanisms are structured to deal with conflicting rights and principles; the values that can or should be baked into platforms' automated decision-making and the rights of appropriation in relation to the development of artificial intelligent systems; and the tax avoidance strategies that are frequently pursued by tech giants to minimise their fiscal responsibility across the multiple jurisdictions in which they provide their services.
 
 This Call for Papers celebrates five years of activities of the UN IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility1. Over the first years of activity, the Coalition has explored the role of digital platforms as gateways to speech, innovation and value creation; it has highlighted that their ascendance as central elements of our society, economy, and public sphere is redefining the concepts of “private” and “public”, and challenging conventional approaches to regulation and governance. Along those lines, this Call for Papers starts from the consideration that, to guarantee the balance and sustainability of governance systems, the exercise of power should be constrained. To do so, a deliberative process over the aims, mechanisms and boundaries of regulation is needed. Accordingly, when private entities rise to the level of quasi-sovereigns or private regulators, it is natural to expect discussion, shared understanding and scrutiny of the choices and trade-offs embedded in their private ordering. Yet, there is little discussion of the ways in which platforms are generating, shaping and championing values in an increasingly intermediated society.
 
 More work is needed to question and enquire what counts as value and how value judgment ought to be made in these hybrid spaces, exploring the elements that should underpin legal and policy-making initiatives, and the risks that may occur when decision-making remains in the sole province of contractual and self-regulation. Contributions to this work should enquire whether it is appropriate for deliberations over platform values and user rights to be exclusively driven by the economic imperatives of shareholders, and whether they should not also take into account the broader set of concerns and expectations of the stakeholders affected by platform regulations.
 
 In this perspective, we call for papers providing analyses and putting forward concrete solutions and policy proposals with regard to platform values. This call is therefore aimed at papers analysing conflicting rights, artificial intelligence systems and tax avoidance strategies with regard to digital platforms. Particularly, the call targets analyses regarding: 
 
 1. Conflicting rights. The first set of governance questions pertain to the intersection of conflicting rights and values: should platforms prioritise certain rights or principles over others? Are they best-placed to identify which rights should be privileged when - privately - regulating social interactions? How should such balancing be conducted between conflicting rights of the same nature, for example between conflicting economic freedoms or conflicting fundamental human rights? What is the relevance of the sources of those rights, for instance in conflicts between rights enshrined in terms of service and diverging conceptions of those rights under the “law of the land”? Should principles, community guidelines and rules of practice (including internal precedents) be weighed any differently as part of balancing? Should balancing be ruled out for certain conflicts?
 
 2. Artificial intelligence.
 This second set of questions can be seen as twofold. On the one hand, it relates to value appropriation, in particular in the scramble for data and insights that can be extracted from it to power a new breed of artificial intelligence applications. Since data is a key input for the improvement of algorithms, profiling, and the elaboration of new cognitive services, should data subjects and other players in the platform ecosystems share in the value generated by their marginal input? Should platforms be the only beneficiaries of this learning process, or should the law constrain their ability to exclude others (including consumers, workers, competitors and complementors) from sharing in the benefits generated by the platform ecosystem? On the other hand, the development and implementation of artificial intelligence systems to automatise decision-making functions calls into question the values that should be “baked” into such systems in order to minimise negative consequences and strive towards the design and development  of ethical automated systems. In this respect, what are the fundamental values that should orientate the design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence within platforms? How can those values be appropriately incorporated into artificial intelligence solutions implemented within platforms? Are the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and due process sufficient to prevent unfair value extraction, or do we need stronger intervention? 
 
 3. Tax avoidance.
 Finally, it is necessary to appreciate whether platforms provide long-term value with their functionalities (for example, bringing together different sides) or rather primarily engage in value extraction (for instance, limiting choice and deriving advantages in favouring certain kinds of behaviors or business models) and regulatory arbitrage. Defining how and where the value is created is crucial in determining the tax regime that is applicable to their activities, and in identifying unfair or fraudulent transfers of wealth. How should value be constructed for tax purposes, and how should regulators around the world deal with global tech giants? Are recent legislative initiatives on digital VAT marking the beginning of an inevitable race to the bottom to attract investment by global platforms, or do they set the foundations for interstate cooperation? Are existing reflections, such as the OECD's works on transfer pricing and Base Erosion and Profit-Shifting sufficiently mature to be implemented by states? And, most importantly, are states willing and able to implement existing proposals?Is a national or local tax on intermediaries for data collection and aggregation a viable way to account for the transfer of value that takes place between users and platforms?
 
 [1] For an overview of the Coalition's work, see https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr?qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re=4#qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re
  
 Timeframe
 
 &Oslash;  Deadline for extended abstracts (min. 4000 words): April 10th, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  First Round of Reviews and paper selection: May 31st, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  Workshop for feedback and paper discussion: July 27th, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  Revised manuscript: September 10th, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  Final decision: September 30th, 2019
  
  
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Belli, PhD 
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law School 
Chercheur Associ&eacute;, Centre de Droit Public Compar&eacute;, Universit&eacute; Paris 2

www.internet-governance.fgv.br
@1lucabelli 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190227/a52d974c/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Feb 27 11:32:42 2019
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:32:42 -0500
Subject: [governance] CIGF / Secure IoT meeting livestreams today/tomorrow
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2grnkdOw=dxdksU1EyZCyWuPgRWENsL_ZfxLW2m6izTQ@mail.gmail.com>

Today's (Feb 27) Canda Internet Governance Forum is being webcast live
via YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBBdI7RDcV-w1lr9I8PQtvw/videos

Agenda: https://canadianigf.ca/agenda/

Twitter: #CIGF2019 http://bit.ly/cigf2019


Tomorrow morning's (Feb 28) Secure IOT meeting will be webcast via livestream
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/iotsecurity2018-5

Info: https://iotsecurity2018.ca/

Twitter:  #SecureIoT2018http://bit.ly/secureiot2018

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 27 14:18:51 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 07:18:51 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Rigf_announce] Reminder: APrIGF Vladivostok 2019
 - Open Call for Workshop Proposals [Deadline: 18 Mar]
In-Reply-To: <331C34A9-3DDF-45C5-BFC1-302B8B9ED5BA@aprigf.asia>
References: <AEA1129D-8EF8-4349-B4BB-6B46F81E0302@aprigf.asia> <331C34A9-3DDF-45C5-BFC1-302B8B9ED5BA@aprigf.asia>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDhsu1HF_qVxS8Z_=6HBzg1ukW2Ns7OkOwfNcedkkZ1qQ@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: APrIGF Secretariat <sec at aprigf.asia>
Date: Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:38 AM
Subject: [Rigf_announce] Reminder: APrIGF Vladivostok 2019 - Open Call for
Workshop Proposals [Deadline: 18 Mar]
To: <announce at aprigf.asia>


*Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
*APrIGF Vladivostok 2019*
*16 July - 19 July 2019*
*Far Eastern University, Vladivostok*
http://2019.aprigf.asia

*Open Call for Workshop Proposals*

Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) is one of the key
regional initiatives on Internet governance which provides an open platform
for multi-stakeholders to discuss and identify issues and priorities, and
ultimately advances the development of Internet governance in the Asia
Pacific region as well as bring forward and contribute to the wider global
Internet community. The 2019 meeting will be held at the Far Eastern
University on Russky Island hosted by Coordination Center for TLD RU.

Our Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group(MSG) now would like to call upon the
community to contribute to the program development process and suggest any
workshop proposals for 2019.

*Overarching Theme: Ensuring a Safe, Secure, and Universal Internet for All
in Asia Pacific*

*Online Submission Form: *
https://www.aprigf.asia/news/2019/call-for-workshop-proposals.html
*Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline:* 18 Mar 2018 (Mon), 24:00 UTC
**Kindly read through the CFP guideline and the 2019 sub-themes before you
submit a proposal!

*Sign up as a Potential Speaker*
If you are planning to participate in APrIGF whether in-person or remotely
and are open to sharing your expertise as a speaker, we encourage you to
sign up as a potential speaker. Person who is providing information to this
Potential Speaker Form will be listed publicly as a directory where you may
be invited by workshop organizers to be speaker/penalist on workshop
relating to his/her field of expertise and experiences. Sign
up Instructions and List: *https://igf.asia/2019speakers
<https://igf.asia/2019speakers>*

If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at
sec at aprigf.asia.

If you are interested to join the APrIGF community to share and discuss
relevant issues or seek collaborators for a workshop, you may subscribe to
the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia by sending in subscription request to
the secretariat.

We also welcome any organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact the
secretariat for more information.

Best Regards,
Secretariat of APrIGF
http://www.aprigf.asia


_______________________________________________
Rigf_announce mailing list
Rigf_announce at web2.dotasia.org
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_announce


-- 

*Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T*

*P. O. Box 17862*

*Suva*


*Republic of Fiji*

*Cell: +679 7656770; *

*Home: +679 3362003*
*Twitter: @SalanietaT*




*"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the
greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190228/01c4b170/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Thu Feb  7 09:14:19 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:14:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
last page of the document.

Regards,
Arsene

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
Discussion Document
To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>

Dear MAG members,

please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
"Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
activities/collaboration”.

Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
creating this document.

Best regards,

Lynn





-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF-WEF Collaboration Discussion.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 22085 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190207/b91788c4/attachment.docx>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 27 16:33:36 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 18:33:36 -0300
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Survey on the ICG/Bestbits Merger
In-Reply-To: <CADAEEV00MP85a=OEW2R7yOJcHvRZXFvP3afAOzO_SJBKiGTk7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDXvWpbTA5uGVjW18sTntZt7yyEgF=Dvu-L-RBiVmxATrctfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWpz1QsRPN0njnfgiqOaTUsNO+nt=bx8aCanMGr7_1CYwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575B4E42B2F08A86BE1A8CBA1BF0@sn6pr07mb4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <em9b30dddd-f749-4b1d-90f5-b86d4452dd80@laptop-93l8qkek>
 <CAK78muQzTCJuXbdrHJAvhQaueTEaw3-s1Vdog94+2WwQAxNYZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwqNGpGNmQ6bHudOdQ3FZt4RggyR62rBaP6C1e7E4RJQ2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <em5f424bca-5849-4098-8e6c-e2632f89d2a5@laptop-93l8qkek> <b8a2c2e9-1477-d805-6e62-8e1271af4cac@jhellerstein.com>
 <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <CAK-FJAdsJDENykn48fAKqvBbatVqFQd8peyKUaXGsjN8MOFgZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJdpWNBCKSJ1Q-n=AHjJDViR=asQ+Wz3jWPCJjiKqo8p_6haDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <emffd5f87c-bcf7-4375-b090-987864a2c752@laptop-93l8qkek> <b12debfe-fb57-92c2-f5a8-84007b0752ad@malcolm.id.au>
 <CAK78muQUCjgKQeAxeg8rzMPohg5T2dkNvVgMHRUYG4PEK3PEXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> <CAMz5XN5Ag7rxKsDcMkOPjxwsgP-sgM=a6UsFcO5LUYRjpn=gMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muRCGd2zQyUaN_CKXKiLcn=Epgur-r4hsSOSpP0Jfkzokw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muTPXF6ek_jr+yFPLdMarhjFf5pF8c4PojRdWEDOf8zrJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muRJh=RDoZRdN0X+XkcQjOz4AUzYfuTn0s2-nn2FKugfhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muSUdg5ATAkmTUPDKr4c_KsJjKL=CvLcaVeDMuLWp_zN_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muQv76fVZkUMXufaxT8QoSVyCu9RcyL7tKO6Gwz9z31tyA@mail.gmail.com> <CADAEEV00MP85a=OEW2R7yOJcHvRZXFvP3afAOzO_SJBKiGTk7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADAEEV2v+0z4+hpcvT9oux_GYR5ti3E6Z+fiLZPi66mekY9Wiw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear IGC members,

On February 11 Bestbits held a call following up on the discussions around
the IGC and BestBits merger. At the opportunity, it was agreed that a
survey would be circulated at the bestbits list in order to collect
opinions around the merger. You can find more details and also the links
with notes from the past two calls on Sheetal's email below.

Either way, if you happen to be a member of Bestbits and wants to share
your views about the merger, please do so on this link -
http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en -
until March 8th.

Best,
Bruna

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
Date: qui, 21 de fev de 2019 às 06:37
Subject: [bestbits] Survey on the future of Bestbits: Have your say!
(Previously "Important:Merging Bestbits with IGC"))
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt &lt <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>


Dear all,

Following a call and discussion on this thread, please see a survey below
to gather your views on the future of Bestbits. Following a call on
February 11 with members of Bestbits, as well as members of IGC, it was
agreed that a survey would be circulated to gather views of all members.

The survey is preceded by a background information note which includes a
summary of the discussions so far, and links to the summaries of calls.

http://bestbits.net/limesurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=528319&lang=en

As a member of the Bestbits mailing list, you are invited to complete the
survey. To inform future discussions in a timely way, please complete the
survey *by 08 March*. Should you have any questions at all, don't hesitate
to get in touch.

Looking forward to hearing your views!

Best

Sheetal.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 20:08, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thank you to those who participated in the call yesterday. For those who
> couldn't attend the call, you'll find the list of participants and notes
> here:  https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Bestbitscallfuture
>
> We had a rich discussion about the possible ways forward for Bestbits,
> building on the previous conversation in December and the discussion on
> this thread since.
>
> In essence, there was general agreement that both Bestbits and IGC have
> been facing challenges in fulfilling their objectives, particularly when it
> comes to coordination and we agreed to circulate a survey to both lists to
> gather perspectives on four suggested ways forward which were discussed on
> the call. It was suggested that this survey with the broader communities
> feed into a decision on the future of the platforms. The survey will be
> circulated shortly to both lists shortly,  and your participation would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Best
> Sheetal.
>
>

-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190227/161f967d/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 27 16:59:25 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:59:25 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Survey on the ICG/Bestbits Merger
In-Reply-To: <CADAEEV2v+0z4+hpcvT9oux_GYR5ti3E6Z+fiLZPi66mekY9Wiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDXvWpbTA5uGVjW18sTntZt7yyEgF=Dvu-L-RBiVmxATrctfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWpz1QsRPN0njnfgiqOaTUsNO+nt=bx8aCanMGr7_1CYwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575B4E42B2F08A86BE1A8CBA1BF0@sn6pr07mb4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <em9b30dddd-f749-4b1d-90f5-b86d4452dd80@laptop-93l8qkek>
 <CAK78muQzTCJuXbdrHJAvhQaueTEaw3-s1Vdog94+2WwQAxNYZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwqNGpGNmQ6bHudOdQ3FZt4RggyR62rBaP6C1e7E4RJQ2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <em5f424bca-5849-4098-8e6c-e2632f89d2a5@laptop-93l8qkek> <b8a2c2e9-1477-d805-6e62-8e1271af4cac@jhellerstein.com>
 <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <CAK-FJAdsJDENykn48fAKqvBbatVqFQd8peyKUaXGsjN8MOFgZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJdpWNBCKSJ1Q-n=AHjJDViR=asQ+Wz3jWPCJjiKqo8p_6haDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <emffd5f87c-bcf7-4375-b090-987864a2c752@laptop-93l8qkek> <b12debfe-fb57-92c2-f5a8-84007b0752ad@malcolm.id.au>
 <CAK78muQUCjgKQeAxeg8rzMPohg5T2dkNvVgMHRUYG4PEK3PEXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> <CAMz5XN5Ag7rxKsDcMkOPjxwsgP-sgM=a6UsFcO5LUYRjpn=gMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muRCGd2zQyUaN_CKXKiLcn=Epgur-r4hsSOSpP0Jfkzokw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muTPXF6ek_jr+yFPLdMarhjFf5pF8c4PojRdWEDOf8zrJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muRJh=RDoZRdN0X+XkcQjOz4AUzYfuTn0s2-nn2FKugfhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muSUdg5ATAkmTUPDKr4c_KsJjKL=CvLcaVeDMuLWp_zN_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muQv76fVZkUMXufaxT8QoSVyCu9RcyL7tKO6Gwz9z31tyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADAEEV00MP85a=OEW2R7yOJcHvRZXFvP3afAOzO_SJBKiGTk7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CADAEEV2v+0z4+hpcvT9oux_GYR5ti3E6Z+fiLZPi66mekY9Wiw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDC6YpiTYoBusnZJBVuoQ1px_y=pcRBu4gJ95YNx-LT9A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Bruna,

Wouldn't the Survey be corrupted because it was shared in the Governance
list instead of restricting it to the Best Bits list. That is if you are
after feedback from Best Bits?

Sala
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190228/e0c8d6ae/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Feb 27 19:25:25 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Paola Perez (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 20:25:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BCommunity-il=5D_APPLICATIONS_OPE?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?N=3A_Shaping_the_Internet_-_History_=26_Futures_//_APLICACIONES?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_ABIERTA=3A_Dando_forma_a_Internet_-_Historia_y_Futuro_//_APPLI?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?CATIONS_OUVERTES=3A_Fa=C3=A7onner_l=27Internet_-_Histoire_et_Av?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?enir?=
References: <119CBDC9-4D7D-459B-8C67-3ADC1460CB7E@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <721418F5-56B0-45EA-A8A9-9270500D5B82@gmail.com>





Begin forwarded message:

> From: Niel Harper <harper at isoc.org>
> Date: February 27, 2019 at 7:16:02 AM GMT-4
> To: "community-il at elists.isoc.org" <community-il at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: [Community-il] APPLICATIONS OPEN: Shaping the Internet - History & Futures // APLICACIONES ABIERTA: Dando forma a Internet - Historia y Futuro // APPLICATIONS OUVERTES: Façonner l'Internet - Histoire et Avenir
> 
> English:
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> The Internet Society is inviting applications for the online course "Shaping the Internet - History & Futures".
>  
> The e-Learning course will be delivered through our learning portal Inforum. This online course covers essential topics for effective interactions and relationships within the Internet ecosystem and key concepts and emerging issues in Internet governance.
>  
> The course will be delivered in English, Spanish and French. Below are the links to the applications.
>  
> English: https://goo.gl/fTsJb2
> Spanish: https://goo.gl/S3PbTD
> French: https://goo.gl/GsSNz7
>  
> Please see below schedule for applications and selections:
>  
> 27-Feb-2019                Applications Open
> 10-Mar-2019                Applications Close
> 15-Mar-2019                Selected Applicants Notified
> 18-Mar-2019                Course Begins
>  
> We encourage you to share information about this course with people in your network who have an interest in Internet governance and policy.
>  
> If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact us at learning at isoc.org.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Internet Leadership Team
>  
> ==========================================================
>  
> Español:  
>  
> Estimados,
>  
> Internet Society abre las aplicaciones para el curso en línea "Dando forma a Internet – historia y futuro".
>  
> El curso de e-Learning se impartirá a través de nuestro portal de aprendizaje Inforum. Este curso en línea cubre temas esenciales para una interacción y relación en el ecosistema de Internet, así como conceptos clave y temas emergentes en gobernanza de Internet.
>  
> El curso se impartirá en inglés, español y francés.
>  
> A continuación, se encuentran los enlaces a las aplicaciones:
>  
> Inglés: https://goo.gl/fTsJb2
> Español: https://goo.gl/S3PbTD
> Francés: https://goo.gl/GsSNz7
>  
> Por favor, vea abajo el calendario de solicitudes y selecciones:
>  
> 27-Feb-2019                Aplicaciones abiertas
> 10-Mar-2019                Aplicaciones Cerrar
> 15-Mar-2019                Solicitantes seleccionados notificados
> 18-Mar-2019                Comienza el curso
>  
> Le recomendamos que comparta la información sobre este curso con personas de su red que estén interesadas en la gobernanza y la política de Internet.
>  
> Si tiene preguntas, no dude en contactarnos en learning at isoc.org.
>  
> Saludos,
>  
> El Equipo de Liderazgo de Internet
>  
> ==========================================================
>  
> Français:
>  
> Chers tous,
>  
> L'Internet Society ouvre les applications pour le cours en ligne « Façonner l'Internet - Histoire et Avenir ».
>  
> Le cours e-Learning sera diffusé via notre portail d'apprentissage Inforum. Cette formation en ligne traite de sujets essentiels concernant l’efficacité des interactions et des relations au sein de l’écosystème Internet, des concepts clés et des questions émergentes concernant la gouvernance d’Internet.
>  
> Le cours sera donné en anglais, espagnol et français. Voici les liens vers les applications.
>  
> Anglais: https://goo.gl/fTsJb2
> Espagnol: https://goo.gl/S3PbTD
> Français: https://goo.gl/GsSNz7
>  
> Veuillez consulter le calendrier ci-dessous pour les applications et les sélections:
>  
> 27 Févr. 2019               Ouverture des candidatures
> 10 Mars 2019               Applications Fermer
> 15 Mars 2019               Candidats sélectionnés notifiés
> 18 Mars 2019               Début du cours
>  
> Nous vous encourageons à partager les informations sur ce cours avec des personnes de votre réseau qui s'intéressent à la gouvernance et aux politiques Internet.
>  
> Si vous avez des questions, n'hésitez pas à nous contacter par email: learning at isoc.org.
>  
> Cordialement,
>  
> L’équipe du Leadership d’Internet
>  
> Regards,
>  
> -----------------------------
> Niel Harper
> Director, NGL & Fellowships
> Internet Society
> 11710 Plaza America Drive
> Reston, VA 20190
> Email: harper at isoc.org
> Skype: OlokunBB
>  
> Follow us on Twitter @ISOC_NextGen
>  
-- 
Paola Pérez
Computer Systems Engineer
 +584147344963
Linkedin Twitter 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190227/40ce8474/attachment.htm>

From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng  Thu Feb 28 05:35:46 2019
From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 11:35:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Survey on the ICG/Bestbits Merger
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiDC6YpiTYoBusnZJBVuoQ1px_y=pcRBu4gJ95YNx-LT9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDXvWpbTA5uGVjW18sTntZt7yyEgF=Dvu-L-RBiVmxATrctfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDXvWpz1QsRPN0njnfgiqOaTUsNO+nt=bx8aCanMGr7_1CYwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575B4E42B2F08A86BE1A8CBA1BF0@sn6pr07mb4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <8D71D649-A51E-46AF-8D8B-AED60C36E200@gmail.com> <em9b30dddd-f749-4b1d-90f5-b86d4452dd80@laptop-93l8qkek>
 <CAK78muQzTCJuXbdrHJAvhQaueTEaw3-s1Vdog94+2WwQAxNYZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwqNGpGNmQ6bHudOdQ3FZt4RggyR62rBaP6C1e7E4RJQ2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <em5f424bca-5849-4098-8e6c-e2632f89d2a5@laptop-93l8qkek> <b8a2c2e9-1477-d805-6e62-8e1271af4cac@jhellerstein.com>
 <8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5f@syr.edu> <CAK-FJAdsJDENykn48fAKqvBbatVqFQd8peyKUaXGsjN8MOFgZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJdpWNBCKSJ1Q-n=AHjJDViR=asQ+Wz3jWPCJjiKqo8p_6haDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <emffd5f87c-bcf7-4375-b090-987864a2c752@laptop-93l8qkek> <b12debfe-fb57-92c2-f5a8-84007b0752ad@malcolm.id.au>
 <CAK78muQUCjgKQeAxeg8rzMPohg5T2dkNvVgMHRUYG4PEK3PEXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6bb74092-192b-8370-b0e8-1987dd61e8e2@malcolm.id.au> <CAMz5XN5Ag7rxKsDcMkOPjxwsgP-sgM=a6UsFcO5LUYRjpn=gMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muRCGd2zQyUaN_CKXKiLcn=Epgur-r4hsSOSpP0Jfkzokw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muTPXF6ek_jr+yFPLdMarhjFf5pF8c4PojRdWEDOf8zrJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muRJh=RDoZRdN0X+XkcQjOz4AUzYfuTn0s2-nn2FKugfhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muSUdg5ATAkmTUPDKr4c_KsJjKL=CvLcaVeDMuLWp_zN_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK78muQv76fVZkUMXufaxT8QoSVyCu9RcyL7tKO6Gwz9z31tyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADAEEV00MP85a=OEW2R7yOJcHvRZXFvP3afAOzO_SJBKiGTk7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADAEEV2v+0z4+hpcvT9oux_GYR5ti3E6Z+fiLZPi66mekY9Wiw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiDC6YpiTYoBusnZJBVuoQ1px_y=pcRBu4gJ95YNx-LT9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOz-jXTGvFzL42Br7XkRWJpzmvys-MJJU0FNQvn37qbeodBGOA@mail.gmail.com>

Fellows,

Sala raised a good question.  Bruno needs to clarify, especially with the
presence of this: "Following a call on February 11 with members of
Bestbits, as well as members of IGC, it was agreed that a survey would be
circulated to gather views of all members."  This statement on one hand
means that a survey is to be circulated to the groups in their separate
domains, implying results will be collected separately and later collated.
On the other hand, in the context of Bruno's mail, it can be understood
that IGC members can all the same take the survey BestBits already put in
place, which means results will be directly pooled in one place and,
likely, we won't know if one group doesn't want the merger.

To echo Sala's concern, isn't it better for IGC to conduct its own survey,
as this will help highlight the extent to which any of the groups want or
doesn't want the merger?

Best,

CPU

*Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, *Ph.D.

Computer Communication Centre

University of Nigeria, 410001 Nigeria

 We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things,

especially if they're not yielding optimum results.


On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:59 PM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:

> Dear Bruna,
>
> Wouldn't the Survey be corrupted because it was shared in the Governance
> list instead of restricting it to the Best Bits list. That is if you are
> after feedback from Best Bits?
>
> Sala
> ---
> 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/20190228/64dce496/attachment.htm>

From milton at gatech.edu  Thu Feb 28 12:13:32 2019
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:13:32 +0000
Subject: [governance] CfP  Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and
 Tax Avoidance
In-Reply-To:  <20190227022317.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.22d63f306a.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
References:  <20190227022317.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.22d63f306a.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>
Message-ID:  <SN6PR07MB4575DD543947B43258640015A1750@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

The CFP says, “there is little discussion of the ways in which platforms are generating, shaping and championing values in an increasingly intermediated society.”
Really? From my perspective in the US I see the entire society intensely engaged in a discussion of precisely this….


From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of LB at lucabelli.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:23 AM
To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
Subject: [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance

Dear colleagues,

Please, find below the Call for Papers for a special issue of the Computer Law & Security Review<https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-law-and-security-review/call-for-papers/platform-values-conflicting-rights-artificial-intelligence>, dedicated to Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.

The CfP celebrates 5 years of activities of the UN Internet Governance Forum Coalition on Platform Responsibility<https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr?qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re=4#qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re> and includes the organisation of a workshop for feedback and discussion of the submitted papers that will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in July 2019.

Please, feel fre eto share this CfP through your networks
Best Regards
Luca

CfP page https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-law-and-security-review/call-for-papers/platform-values-conflicting-rights-artificial-intelligence

Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.

Purpose:

The purpose of this call is to gather a diverse range of analytical perspectives on the multiform notion of platform values. The special issue resulting from this call will be presented in a dedicated workshop at the IGF 2019, hosted by the Government of Germany in Berlin from 25 to 29 November 2019. To guarantee that authors receive the most extensive feedback on their contributions, an additional workshop for feedback and paper discussion will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 27 July 2019 (see the timeframe at the bottom of this call). The authors of the papers selected after the first round of reviews will be invited to come – at their own expenses – to present their draft papers at the workshop.

Description:

Platform regulations are having enormous impact on the lives of several billion individuals, and this impact is poised to increase over the next decade. This special issue aims at exploring three of the most crucial points of contention with regard to values underlying the operation of digital platforms: the dispute resolution mechanisms they design and the ways such mechanisms are structured to deal with conflicting rights and principles; the values that can or should be baked into platforms’ automated decision-making and the rights of appropriation in relation to the development of artificial intelligent systems; and the tax avoidance strategies that are frequently pursued by tech giants to minimise their fiscal responsibility across the multiple jurisdictions in which they provide their services.

This Call for Papers celebrates five years of activities of the UN IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility1. Over the first years of activity, the Coalition has explored the role of digital platforms as gateways to speech, innovation and value creation; it has highlighted that their ascendance as central elements of our society, economy, and public sphere is redefining the concepts of “private” and “public”, and challenging conventional approaches to regulation and governance. Along those lines, this Call for Papers starts from the consideration that, to guarantee the balance and sustainability of governance systems, the exercise of power should be constrained. To do so, a deliberative process over the aims, mechanisms and boundaries of regulation is needed. Accordingly, when private entities rise to the level of quasi-sovereigns or private regulators, it is natural to expect discussion, shared understanding and scrutiny of the choices and trade-offs embedded in their private ordering. Yet, there is little discussion of the ways in which platforms are generating, shaping and championing values in an increasingly intermediated society.

More work is needed to question and enquire what counts as value and how value judgment ought to be made in these hybrid spaces, exploring the elements that should underpin legal and policy-making initiatives, and the risks that may occur when decision-making remains in the sole province of contractual and self-regulation. Contributions to this work should enquire whether it is appropriate for deliberations over platform values and user rights to be exclusively driven by the economic imperatives of shareholders, and whether they should not also take into account the broader set of concerns and expectations of the stakeholders affected by platform regulations.

In this perspective, we call for papers providing analyses and putting forward concrete solutions and policy proposals with regard to platform values. This call is therefore aimed at papers analysing conflicting rights, artificial intelligence systems and tax avoidance strategies with regard to digital platforms. Particularly, the call targets analyses regarding:

1. Conflicting rights.

The first set of governance questions pertain to the intersection of conflicting rights and values: should platforms prioritise certain rights or principles over others? Are they best-placed to identify which rights should be privileged when - privately - regulating social interactions? How should such balancing be conducted between conflicting rights of the same nature, for example between conflicting economic freedoms or conflicting fundamental human rights? What is the relevance of the sources of those rights, for instance in conflicts between rights enshrined in terms of service and diverging conceptions of those rights under the “law of the land”? Should principles, community guidelines and rules of practice (including internal precedents) be weighed any differently as part of balancing? Should balancing be ruled out for certain conflicts?

2. Artificial intelligence.

This second set of questions can be seen as twofold. On the one hand, it relates to value appropriation, in particular in the scramble for data and insights that can be extracted from it to power a new breed of artificial intelligence applications. Since data is a key input for the improvement of algorithms, profiling, and the elaboration of new cognitive services, should data subjects and other players in the platform ecosystems share in the value generated by their marginal input? Should platforms be the only beneficiaries of this learning process, or should the law constrain their ability to exclude others (including consumers, workers, competitors and complementors) from sharing in the benefits generated by the platform ecosystem? On the other hand, the development and implementation of artificial intelligence systems to automatise decision-making functions calls into question the values that should be “baked” into such systems in order to minimise negative consequences and strive towards the design and development  of ethical automated systems. In this respect, what are the fundamental values that should orientate the design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence within platforms? How can those values be appropriately incorporated into artificial intelligence solutions implemented within platforms? Are the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and due process sufficient to prevent unfair value extraction, or do we need stronger intervention?

3. Tax avoidance.

Finally, it is necessary to appreciate whether platforms provide long-term value with their functionalities (for example, bringing together different sides) or rather primarily engage in value extraction (for instance, limiting choice and deriving advantages in favouring certain kinds of behaviors or business models) and regulatory arbitrage. Defining how and where the value is created is crucial in determining the tax regime that is applicable to their activities, and in identifying unfair or fraudulent transfers of wealth. How should value be constructed for tax purposes, and how should regulators around the world deal with global tech giants? Are recent legislative initiatives on digital VAT marking the beginning of an inevitable race to the bottom to attract investment by global platforms, or do they set the foundations for interstate cooperation? Are existing reflections, such as the OECD’s works on transfer pricing and Base Erosion and Profit-Shifting sufficiently mature to be implemented by states? And, most importantly, are states willing and able to implement existing proposals?Is a national or local tax on intermediaries for data collection and aggregation a viable way to account for the transfer of value that takes place between users and platforms?

[1] For an overview of the Coalition’s work, see https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr?qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re=4#qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re

Timeframe

Ø  Deadline for extended abstracts (min. 4000 words): April 10th, 2019

Ø  First Round of Reviews and paper selection: May 31st, 2019

Ø  Workshop for feedback and paper discussion: July 27th, 2019

Ø  Revised manuscript: September 10th, 2019

Ø  Final decision: September 30th, 2019




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Belli, PhD
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law School
Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2
www.internet-governance.fgv.br<http://www.internet-governance.fgv.br>
@1lucabelli
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190228/276c866a/attachment.htm>

From LB at lucabelli.net  Thu Feb 28 16:02:14 2019
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:02:14 -0700
Subject: [governance] [GIGANET-MEMBERS] CfP  Platform Values:
 Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR07MB4575DD543947B43258640015A1750@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20190228140214.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.caa7e1df91.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>

So, problem solved!!
 
Your email seems to imply that, if from your perspective the US society is debating the issue, it means no one else in the world needs to be concerned or develop research anymore... Quite curious perspective :) 
 
Have an excellent evening
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at GATECH.EDU>
Date: 2/28/19 1:13 pm
To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

  The CFP says, “there is little discussion of the ways in which platforms are generating, shaping and championing values in an increasingly intermediated society.”
 Really? From my perspective in the US I see the entire society intensely engaged in a discussion of precisely this&hellip;.
 
 
  
    From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of LB at lucabelli.net
 Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:23 AM
 To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
 Subject: [governance] CfP Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance
 


   Dear colleagues,
 

 
Please, find below the Call for Papers for a  special issue of the Computer Law & Security Review, dedicated to Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.
 

 
The CfP celebrates 5 years of activities of the UN Internet Governance Forum  Coalition on Platform Responsibility and includes the organisation of a workshop for feedback and discussion of the submitted papers that will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in July 2019.
 

 
Please, feel fre eto share this CfP through your networks
 
Best Regards
 
Luca
 

 
CfP page  https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-law-and-security-review/call-for-papers/platform-values-conflicting-rights-artificial-intelligence
 

 
Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance.
 

 
Purpose:
 
 The purpose of this call is to gather a diverse range of analytical perspectives on the multiform notion of platform values. The special issue resulting from this call will be presented in a dedicated workshop at the IGF 2019, hosted by the Government of Germany in Berlin from 25 to 29 November 2019. To guarantee that authors receive the most extensive feedback on their contributions, an additional workshop for feedback and paper discussion will be hosted at FGV Law School, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 27 July 2019 (see the timeframe at the bottom of this call). The authors of the papers selected after the first round of reviews will be invited to come - at their own expenses - to present their draft papers at the workshop.
 
 Description:
 
 Platform regulations are having enormous impact on the lives of several billion individuals, and this impact is poised to increase over the next decade. This special issue aims at exploring three of the most crucial points of contention with regard to values underlying the operation of digital platforms: the dispute resolution mechanisms they design and the ways such mechanisms are structured to deal with conflicting rights and principles; the values that can or should be baked into platforms' automated decision-making and the rights of appropriation in relation to the development of artificial intelligent systems; and the tax avoidance strategies that are frequently pursued by tech giants to minimise their fiscal responsibility across the multiple jurisdictions in which they provide their services.
 
 This Call for Papers celebrates five years of activities of the UN IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility1. Over the first years of activity, the Coalition has explored the role of digital platforms as gateways to speech, innovation and value creation; it has highlighted that their ascendance as central elements of our society, economy, and public sphere is redefining the concepts of “private” and “public”, and challenging conventional approaches to regulation and governance. Along those lines, this Call for Papers starts from the consideration that, to guarantee the balance and sustainability of governance systems, the exercise of power should be constrained. To do so, a deliberative process over the aims, mechanisms and boundaries of regulation is needed. Accordingly, when private entities rise to the level of quasi-sovereigns or private regulators, it is natural to expect discussion, shared understanding and scrutiny of the choices and trade-offs embedded in their private ordering. Yet, there is little discussion of the ways in which platforms are generating, shaping and championing values in an increasingly intermediated society.
 
 More work is needed to question and enquire what counts as value and how value judgment ought to be made in these hybrid spaces, exploring the elements that should underpin legal and policy-making initiatives, and the risks that may occur when decision-making remains in the sole province of contractual and self-regulation. Contributions to this work should enquire whether it is appropriate for deliberations over platform values and user rights to be exclusively driven by the economic imperatives of shareholders, and whether they should not also take into account the broader set of concerns and expectations of the stakeholders affected by platform regulations.
 
 In this perspective, we call for papers providing analyses and putting forward concrete solutions and policy proposals with regard to platform values. This call is therefore aimed at papers analysing conflicting rights, artificial intelligence systems and tax avoidance strategies with regard to digital platforms. Particularly, the call targets analyses regarding: 
 
 1. Conflicting rights.
 The first set of governance questions pertain to the intersection of conflicting rights and values: should platforms prioritise certain rights or principles over others? Are they best-placed to identify which rights should be privileged when - privately - regulating social interactions? How should such balancing be conducted between conflicting rights of the same nature, for example between conflicting economic freedoms or conflicting fundamental human rights? What is the relevance of the sources of those rights, for instance in conflicts between rights enshrined in terms of service and diverging conceptions of those rights under the “law of the land”? Should principles, community guidelines and rules of practice (including internal precedents) be weighed any differently as part of balancing? Should balancing be ruled out for certain conflicts?
 
 2. Artificial intelligence.
 This second set of questions can be seen as twofold. On the one hand, it relates to value appropriation, in particular in the scramble for data and insights that can be extracted from it to power a new breed of artificial intelligence applications. Since data is a key input for the improvement of algorithms, profiling, and the elaboration of new cognitive services, should data subjects and other players in the platform ecosystems share in the value generated by their marginal input? Should platforms be the only beneficiaries of this learning process, or should the law constrain their ability to exclude others (including consumers, workers, competitors and complementors) from sharing in the benefits generated by the platform ecosystem? On the other hand, the development and implementation of artificial intelligence systems to automatise decision-making functions calls into question the values that should be “baked” into such systems in order to minimise negative consequences and strive towards the design and development  of ethical automated systems. In this respect, what are the fundamental values that should orientate the design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence within platforms? How can those values be appropriately incorporated into artificial intelligence solutions implemented within platforms? Are the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and due process sufficient to prevent unfair value extraction, or do we need stronger intervention? 
 
 3. Tax avoidance.
 Finally, it is necessary to appreciate whether platforms provide long-term value with their functionalities (for example, bringing together different sides) or rather primarily engage in value extraction (for instance, limiting choice and deriving advantages in favouring certain kinds of behaviors or business models) and regulatory arbitrage. Defining how and where the value is created is crucial in determining the tax regime that is applicable to their activities, and in identifying unfair or fraudulent transfers of wealth. How should value be constructed for tax purposes, and how should regulators around the world deal with global tech giants? Are recent legislative initiatives on digital VAT marking the beginning of an inevitable race to the bottom to attract investment by global platforms, or do they set the foundations for interstate cooperation? Are existing reflections, such as the OECD's works on transfer pricing and Base Erosion and Profit-Shifting sufficiently mature to be implemented by states? And, most importantly, are states willing and able to implement existing proposals?Is a national or local tax on intermediaries for data collection and aggregation a viable way to account for the transfer of value that takes place between users and platforms?
 
 [1] For an overview of the Coalition's work, see  https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalition-on-platform-responsibility-dcpr?qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re=4#qt-dynamic_coalition_on_platform_re
  
 Timeframe
 
 &Oslash;  Deadline for extended abstracts (min. 4000 words): April 10th, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  First Round of Reviews and paper selection: May 31st, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  Workshop for feedback and paper discussion: July 27th, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  Revised manuscript: September 10th, 2019
 
 &Oslash;  Final decision: September 30th, 2019
  
  
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Luca Belli, PhD 
 
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Rio de Janeiro Law School 
 
Chercheur Associ&eacute;, Centre de Droit Public Compar&eacute;, Universit&eacute; Paris 2
 
www.internet-governance.fgv.br
 
@1lucabelli 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 

 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
 This message, as well as any attached document, may contain information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190228/5183c9c2/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Fri Feb  8 08:11:53 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Akinremi Peter Taiwo (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:11:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org> <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGK4d0-SAtCNv_NOtD+gBCKF9=HmuJWZwe+gWYYwyNFC3WLmsw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for sharing with us Arsene.
I personally see this collaboration as a way forward to a broader inclusive
information society and internet governance forum. At this pressing time of
digital cooperation and dwindling trust, every actor in the internet
ecosystem value chain must work together towards a safe, open and trusted
digital economy.

Regards.
Peter

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:14 PM Arsène Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> last page of the document.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> Discussion Document
> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>
> Dear MAG members,
>
> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> activities/collaboration”.
>
> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> creating this document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
> <
>
> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
> >
>
> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
> <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>


-- 
<https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
Peter Taiwo Akinremi
about.me/petertaiwoakinremi
<https://about.me/petertaiwoakinremi?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190208/80327469/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Sat Feb  9 04:33:19 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (parminder (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:03:19 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
 <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <671dc7d8-147d-d454-7c4f-2fbe12c09286@itforchange.net>

We may meanwhile also make inquires if the IGF MAG has also considered
possible closer collaboration with the World Social Forum? Or even heard
of it?

Or is the global elite the only port of call and potential partner for
everyone, given of course that they are super rich ,and it is quite
valuable to be with, and on the side of, the super rich.

Would this 'civil society' group like to assess - internally, or if it
feels constained vis a vis various resources to do so, take the help of
external civil society groups -- about what much of global society
thinks of the WEF and associates it with ..

It is not that long back that a good part of IG civil society warmly
embraced  the conspiracy to carry the global anchor of Internet
governance to the WEF, via the WEF / ICANN led Net Mundial Initiative
(different from the Net Mundial Conference in Brazil)..... And if that
effort failed it had almost nothing to do with any resistance from the
civil society, which most (outsiders) may have thought would be the
case, but bec of combination of very different reasons, the technical
community resisted (god bless them!), there was internal big business
associations rivalry (WEF vrs ICC), and  most developing country govs
did not show any enthusiasm. That was an inglorious chapter in IG civil
society's history... Interesting that people are exploring going down
such a route again....

parminder

PS; pardon the cynical tone, but could find no better way to make this
intensely political point.


> Hi all,
>
> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> last page of the document.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> Discussion Document
> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>
> Dear MAG members,
>
> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> activities/collaboration”.
>
> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> creating this document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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/20190209/5a2a2654/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Sat Feb  9 22:02:50 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 22:02:50 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <671dc7d8-147d-d454-7c4f-2fbe12c09286@itforchange.net>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
 <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com> <671dc7d8-147d-d454-7c4f-2fbe12c09286@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAN1qJvAqpM2MpuxjgjNC=yjeRj7MFf69kU8tqiKncT=ccFbchw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Arsene.

I am not supportive of this idea. As we have been arguing, the Internet
Governance Forum is a *forum* which many organizations, from various
stakeholders, contribute to.  Why should we start in an arbitrary haphazard
way "collaborating" with other organizations and why should it be "WEF"?

Here are the questions asked in the document you shared:

We would like to hear your thoughts or reactions, e.g.:
 Supportive?
 What would be a useful collaboration in your mind?
 What topics would you prioritise?
 What challenges or risks would need to be managed?

My answer is: not supportive

I suggest the MAG chair preserve neutrality in this matter.

Best


Farzaneh


On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 4:34 AM parminder <governance at lists.riseup.net>
wrote:

> We may meanwhile also make inquires if the IGF MAG has also considered
> possible closer collaboration with the World Social Forum? Or even heard of
> it?
>
> Or is the global elite the only port of call and potential partner for
> everyone, given of course that they are super rich ,and it is quite
> valuable to be with, and on the side of, the super rich.
>
> Would this 'civil society' group like to assess - internally, or if it
> feels constained vis a vis various resources to do so, take the help of
> external civil society groups -- about what much of global society thinks
> of the WEF and associates it with ..
>
> It is not that long back that a good part of IG civil society warmly
> embraced  the conspiracy to carry the global anchor of Internet governance
> to the WEF, via the WEF / ICANN led Net Mundial Initiative (different from
> the Net Mundial Conference in Brazil)..... And if that effort failed it had
> almost nothing to do with any resistance from the civil society, which most
> (outsiders) may have thought would be the case, but bec of combination of
> very different reasons, the technical community resisted (god bless them!),
> there was internal big business associations rivalry (WEF vrs ICC), and
> most developing country govs did not show any enthusiasm. That was an
> inglorious chapter in IG civil society's history... Interesting that people
> are exploring going down such a route again....
>
> parminder
>
> PS; pardon the cynical tone, but could find no better way to make this
> intensely political point.
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
> last page of the document.
>
> Regards,
> Arsene
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org> <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
> Discussion Document
> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org> <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org> <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>
> Dear MAG members,
>
> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
> activities/collaboration”.
>
> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
> creating this document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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>
>
> ---
> 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/20190209/02e1fd53/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Sun Feb 10 05:20:14 2019
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 10:20:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CAN1qJvAqpM2MpuxjgjNC=yjeRj7MFf69kU8tqiKncT=ccFbchw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org>
 <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <671dc7d8-147d-d454-7c4f-2fbe12c09286@itforchange.net> <CAN1qJvAqpM2MpuxjgjNC=yjeRj7MFf69kU8tqiKncT=ccFbchw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-2=BUaLmrHjSO_NLT8z+gCf=o9HGKmMwZhtK9BjibYKg@mail.gmail.com>

Good point, Farzaneh!
I would add, nothing prevents anyone from engaging actively in the
proceedings of the IGF or from building on its outcomes. Now to
specifically ask for collaboration, WEF should be the one answering those
questions put forward in the document : for what purpose, exactly? What are
they hoping to achieve through that collaboration, which could not be
achieved by simply engaging with the open process of the IGF on "equal
footing" just like any other stakeholder?

Mawaki

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019, 3:03 AM farzaneh badii <governance at lists.riseup.net
wrote:

> Thanks Arsene.
>
> I am not supportive of this idea. As we have been arguing, the Internet
> Governance Forum is a *forum* which many organizations, from various
> stakeholders, contribute to.  Why should we start in an arbitrary haphazard
> way "collaborating" with other organizations and why should it be "WEF"?
>
> Here are the questions asked in the document you shared:
>
> We would like to hear your thoughts or reactions, e.g.:
>  Supportive?
>  What would be a useful collaboration in your mind?
>  What topics would you prioritise?
>  What challenges or risks would need to be managed?
>
> My answer is: not supportive
>
> I suggest the MAG chair preserve neutrality in this matter.
>
> Best
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 4:34 AM parminder <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> wrote:
>
>> We may meanwhile also make inquires if the IGF MAG has also considered
>> possible closer collaboration with the World Social Forum? Or even heard of
>> it?
>>
>> Or is the global elite the only port of call and potential partner for
>> everyone, given of course that they are super rich ,and it is quite
>> valuable to be with, and on the side of, the super rich.
>>
>> Would this 'civil society' group like to assess - internally, or if it
>> feels constained vis a vis various resources to do so, take the help of
>> external civil society groups -- about what much of global society thinks
>> of the WEF and associates it with ..
>>
>> It is not that long back that a good part of IG civil society warmly
>> embraced  the conspiracy to carry the global anchor of Internet governance
>> to the WEF, via the WEF / ICANN led Net Mundial Initiative (different from
>> the Net Mundial Conference in Brazil)..... And if that effort failed it had
>> almost nothing to do with any resistance from the civil society, which most
>> (outsiders) may have thought would be the case, but bec of combination of
>> very different reasons, the technical community resisted (god bless them!),
>> there was internal big business associations rivalry (WEF vrs ICC), and
>> most developing country govs did not show any enthusiasm. That was an
>> inglorious chapter in IG civil society's history... Interesting that people
>> are exploring going down such a route again....
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> PS; pardon the cynical tone, but could find no better way to make this
>> intensely political point.
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>>
>> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
>> last page of the document.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org> <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>> Discussion Document
>> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org> <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org> <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>>
>> Dear MAG members,
>>
>> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
>> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
>> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>> activities/collaboration”.
>>
>> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>> creating this document.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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>
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
> ---
> 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/20190210/e27470d3/attachment.htm>

From judith at jhellerstein.com  Sun Feb 10 05:35:02 2019
From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 05:35:02 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF)
 Collaboration Discussion Document
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-2=BUaLmrHjSO_NLT8z+gCf=o9HGKmMwZhtK9BjibYKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <06810817-CAFE-4C21-B8B7-1C5DB589983D@Internet-Matters.org> <CABDXvWo8LXXrj=JXvrWoN9Hn8RQjNeE5dWEDtWqcbDdWB5j9dQ@mail.gmail.com> <671dc7d8-147d-d454-7c4f-2fbe12c09286@itforchange.net> <CAN1qJvAqpM2MpuxjgjNC=yjeRj7MFf69kU8tqiKncT=ccFbchw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v-2=BUaLmrHjSO_NLT8z+gCf=o9HGKmMwZhtK9BjibYKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A110B7ED-2AF9-4291-9E8B-EC390D9099D7@jhellerstein.com>

Hi all, 

I agree with both Mawaki and Farzi on this. Not sure why WEF is not the body asking this question 

Best 
Judith 

Sent from my iPhone
Judith at jhellerstein.com
Skype ID:Judithhellerstein 

> On Feb 10, 2019, at 5:20 AM, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> Good point, Farzaneh!
> I would add, nothing prevents anyone from engaging actively in the proceedings of the IGF or from building on its outcomes. Now to specifically ask for collaboration, WEF should be the one answering those questions put forward in the document : for what purpose, exactly? What are they hoping to achieve through that collaboration, which could not be achieved by simply engaging with the open process of the IGF on "equal footing" just like any other stakeholder?
> 
> Mawaki 
> 
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019, 3:03 AM farzaneh badii <governance at lists.riseup.net wrote:
>> Thanks Arsene. 
>> 
>> I am not supportive of this idea. As we have been arguing, the Internet Governance Forum is a forum which many organizations, from various stakeholders, contribute to.  Why should we start in an arbitrary haphazard way "collaborating" with other organizations and why should it be "WEF"?
>> 
>> Here are the questions asked in the document you shared:
>> 
>> We would like to hear your thoughts or reactions, e.g.:
>>  Supportive?
>>  What would be a useful collaboration in your mind?
>>  What topics would you prioritise?
>>  What challenges or risks would need to be managed?
>> 
>> My answer is: not supportive
>> 
>> I suggest the MAG chair preserve neutrality in this matter. 
>> 
>> Best 
>> 
>> 
>> Farzaneh
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 4:34 AM parminder <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
>>> We may meanwhile also make inquires if the IGF MAG has also considered possible closer collaboration with the World Social Forum? Or even heard of it?
>>> 
>>> Or is the global elite the only port of call and potential partner for everyone, given of course that they are super rich ,and it is quite valuable to be with, and on the side of, the super rich. 
>>> 
>>> Would this 'civil society' group like to assess - internally, or if it feels constained vis a vis various resources to do so, take the help of external civil society groups -- about what much of global society thinks of the WEF and associates it with ..
>>> 
>>> It is not that long back that a good part of IG civil society warmly embraced  the conspiracy to carry the global anchor of Internet governance to the WEF, via the WEF / ICANN led Net Mundial Initiative (different from the Net Mundial Conference in Brazil)..... And if that effort failed it had almost nothing to do with any resistance from the civil society, which most (outsiders) may have thought would be the case, but bec of combination of very different reasons, the technical community resisted (god bless them!), there was internal big business associations rivalry (WEF vrs ICC), and  most developing country govs did not show any enthusiasm. That was an inglorious chapter in IG civil society's history... Interesting that people are exploring going down such a route again....
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> PS; pardon the cynical tone, but could find no better way to make this intensely political point. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Meant to share this document here to have your thoughts about the
>>>> collaboration between the IGF and WEF that MAG Chair is pushing for.
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions mentionned at the
>>>> last page of the document.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Arsene
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at internet-matters.org>
>>>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 15:32:46 -0500
>>>> Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF - World Economic Forum (WEF) Collaboration
>>>> Discussion Document
>>>> To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>>>> Cc: Derek O'Halloran <Derek.OHalloran at weforum.org>
>>>> 
>>>> Dear MAG members,
>>>> 
>>>> please find below a document in support of a discussion on possible
>>>> ways to increase collaboration between the IGF community and the World
>>>> Economic Forum (WEF).  It builds on past collaborative efforts and is
>>>> in support of Agenda item 4 in the IGF Open Consultation meeting:
>>>> "Updates from related Internet Governance initiatives and processes,
>>>> followed by open discussion on possible IGF 2019
>>>> activities/collaboration”.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you to Derek O’Halloran and the WEF staff for their help
>>>> creating this document.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Lynn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
> ---
> 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/20190210/bd70c9e4/attachment.htm>