[governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps")
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Mon Jun 17 17:45:02 EDT 2019
Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of
course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the
list archives.
By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have pretty
complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a back-up
drive somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list when it
was still hosted by APC is still available somewhere too.
Anriette
-----------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen
Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning
Association for Progressive Communications
apc.org
afrisig.org
anriette at apc.org
On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Really good point, Sheetal.
>
> But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there
> are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening
> because the lists are not integrated.
>
>
>
> So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these
> lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence
> favor maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved?
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had
> here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop
> Bestbits in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent
> perceptions of the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its
> discussion but at some point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC
> will need to be updated as I believe there are some Bestbits members
> who have only seen one side of the conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy
> to loop Bestbits back in, and share the conversation that has already
> happened?
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Sheetal.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini
> <carolina.rossini at gmail.com <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|
>
>
> ---
> 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/20190617/f0fa68b7/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list