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

Mon Jun 17 17:08:25 EDT 2019

Really good point, Sheetal.
But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because the lists are not integrated.

So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved?

--MM

Dear all,

Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the conversation that has already happened?

Best
Sheetal.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com<mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>> wrote:
I did not say anybody was suggesting anything.  It was just a reminder.
Tks

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:

@Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BestBits documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a matter of how we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy has been wanting to transfer the domain name for the past  I think around 3 years, no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website.

As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in the proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and generally more engagement with IG processes.

As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members, Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey).

@Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action and am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's help was crucial in making that happen.

Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have these conversations.

Farzaneh

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>> wrote:
I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There are more than 11.

And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site has a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and saved.

Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I am.

Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and sensitive touch it does deserve.

C

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members join IGC individually. End of story.

But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala points out.

Ian.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
To: "Sheetal Kumar" <sheetal at gp-digital.org<mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org>>
Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" <ba2482 at columbia.edu<mailto:ba2482 at columbia.edu>>; "Lee W McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu<mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>>; "Tapani Tarvainen" <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org<mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>>; "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet at gmail.com>>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" <compsoftnet at gmail.com<mailto:compsoftnet at gmail.com>>; "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net<mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>>
Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps")

The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to merge then by all means.

Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they left or unsubscribed.

One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus.

The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum in their individual capacity.

I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report back to the UNGA.

On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year.

The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against these giants.  Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands.

One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC has always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East, West, South, North. The principles are well established in International law and Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed is relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats.

Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non bureaucratic way to get traction.

What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for regulation! Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the US for imposing taxes.

It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a European Court of Human Rights with others.

We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve.

2.36am so best be getting back to bed.

Cheers,
Sala

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net<mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
--

Carolina Rossini
+ 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
PGP ID:  0xEC81015C
---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net<mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
--

Carolina Rossini
+ 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
PGP ID:  0xEC81015C

--

Sheetal Kumar
Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20190617/de1f68f7/attachment.htm>