[governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of Bestbits: next steps")
Sheetal Kumar
sheetal at gp-digital.org
Mon Jun 24 12:32:23 EDT 2019
My understanding is that there isn't a functioning website, but if it has
been reinstated it would be great to get the link.
Thanks!
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:28, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope you are well Sheetal.
>
> There is usually a list of members on the IGC website which describes
> those who can vote or not as per charter depending on whether they
> participated in the elections and voted.
>
> The IGC alongwith others should have a day 0 event at the IGF.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:25 pm Sheetal Kumar, <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sala, all,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply! So we can continue the conversation on the proposal
>> included at the beginning of this thread in the other thread which includes
>> Bestbits members. I actually have no idea who is part of both as there are
>> definitely members of Bestbits who are not members of IGC and vice versa,
>> but I know there is some discrepancy.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 17:20, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Best Bits is dead. Members of Best Bits are also members on IGC and if
>>> some are'nt there is nothing stopping them from joining the IGC, if they
>>> wished to do so.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 5:15 pm Sheetal Kumar, <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for the delay in responding - I've been away for a week and I
>>>> trust you received my OOO. Reading through the comments, it seems to me
>>>> there is more or less agreement on some things but less on others. In
>>>> essence:
>>>>
>>>> - There seems to be agreement that reviving IGC is a good thing
>>>> because there's a lot of work to be done by CS on important IG issues on
>>>> the global agenda/at global forums
>>>> - There's some agreement that merging BB with IGC would be a good
>>>> way forward to accomplish that but concern that the appropriate process
>>>> hasn't been followed within IGC, albeit there is disagreement about what
>>>> that process would/could be
>>>> - There's agreement that all documents, from both lists, should be
>>>> preserved and centralised for easy access by all members
>>>> - There support for organising a day 0 event at the IGF in Berlin
>>>> - There's less agreement that there's a need to review the IGC
>>>> Charter
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully this captures the conversation so far?
>>>>
>>>> I've also read the responses on the thread which includes Bestbits and
>>>> although there are only a few responses there, combined with the views of
>>>> those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, I think we can say that there
>>>> is general support from the Bestbits list members for merging so far.
>>>>
>>>> As such, I'd suggest the following as a way forward, interested to hear
>>>> what others think if you don't agree:
>>>>
>>>> - If there isn't agreement on the diagnosis of the problem, we can
>>>> start the discussion anew. It's important we all agree on the premise we're
>>>> working on, otherwise we'll move forward leaving people behind and just
>>>> recreate the current situation again. Currently the diagnosis of those
>>>> engaged, and the basis of those who attended the meeting at RightsCon, is
>>>> that civil society working on IG issues is split/fragmented and therefore
>>>> less effective than it could be. If anyone disagrees with this diagnosis, I
>>>> think they should express this on the thread with Bestbits included
>>>> - If anyone is against the merger as a way of addressing this issue
>>>> (i.e split/fragmentation as a key factor which explains our
>>>> ineffectiveness) I think this should be expressed on the Bestbits thread
>>>> too - mainly because of the general support for the idea of merging among
>>>> members of both lists, and the main concern currently expressed about the
>>>> merger being about process. Otherwise, the conversations will continue to
>>>> be split and the current situation will be perpetuated.
>>>> - If anyone is against the idea of reforming the Charter *in
>>>> principle* they make that clear in the thread with Bestbits too -
>>>> as there maybe Bestbits members who have opinions on that as well. This is
>>>> just a conversation so if there is strong disagreement about reforming the
>>>> Charter among anyone in either list, we could potentially agree not to
>>>> reform it and revisit the idea in a year, for example.
>>>>
>>>> Unless there's disagreement, I'll send a reminder to the thread which
>>>> includes Bestbits at the end of this week, and hopefully we can weave
>>>> ourselves back together there?
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Sheetal
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:45, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Agree completely with you on this Milton. And as Farzi pointed out, of
>>>>> course we should preserve the documents on the Best Bits site, and the list
>>>>> archives.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, if anyone wants the archives of the IGC lists I have
>>>>> pretty complete records for 2009-2016. Probably earlier too but on a
>>>>> back-up drive somewhere. I also think that the list archive of the list
>>>>> when it was still hosted by APC is still available somewhere too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>>>> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning
>>>>> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2019/06/17 23:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Really good point, Sheetal.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it is actually a substantive one. You have pointed out that there
>>>>> are divergent perceptions of the discussion, and this is happening because
>>>>> the lists are not integrated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So how can anyone seriously suggest that we do not need to merge these
>>>>> lists? How can anyone truly concerned with civil society influence favor
>>>>> maintaining this stupid barrier between the groups involved?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --MM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Without wanting to weigh in on the substantive discussion being had
>>>>> here, I was just wondering if it was a purposeful decision to drop Bestbits
>>>>> in some of these replies. It seems there are two divergent perceptions of
>>>>> the discussion happening. Happy for IGC to have its discussion but at some
>>>>> point, those on Bestbits who are not on IGC will need to be updated as I
>>>>> believe there are some Bestbits members who have only seen one side of the
>>>>> conversation. Otherwise, I'm happy to loop Bestbits back in, and share the
>>>>> conversation that has already happened?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheetal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:03, Carolina Rossini <
>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not say anybody was suggesting anything. It was just a reminder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM farzaneh badii <
>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @Carolina (Hello!) I don't think anyone here is suggesting that
>>>>> BestBits documents, materials etc will not be preserved. It is only a
>>>>> matter of how we should preserve them when we carry out the merge. (Jeremy
>>>>> has been wanting to transfer the domain name for the past I think around 3
>>>>> years, no one wants to take over, so we definitely need a plan), we can for
>>>>> example decide on having the materials stored on future IGC website.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As to changes to the IGC charter, as Sheetal explained and it is in
>>>>> the proposal, the changes are going to be lightweight but if IGC charter
>>>>> recommends a process for amendment, then we should follow that. I still
>>>>> support forming a small group to look into these issues and let us know how
>>>>> we should proceed. Even if we don't agree to change the charter, we can
>>>>> consider what new features IGC should possess in order to address the needs
>>>>> of its members and those members that are migrating from BestBits and
>>>>> generally more engagement with IG processes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As to the poll among BestBits members, that is something you need to
>>>>> discuss with BestBits. Just a reminder that both groups have been in my
>>>>> opinion briefed and engaged with the conversation. We did not just have a
>>>>> meeting with 11 members. Since December 2018, IGC and BestBits held
>>>>> meetings about this, a survey was taken to see what BestBits members think
>>>>> (the average attendance in those meetings was something like 15 members,
>>>>> Sheetal shared a comprehensive result of the survey).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @Sala thank you for your kind words. I believe in collective action
>>>>> and am glad that you found the briefings and reports useful. InternetNZ's
>>>>> help was crucial in making that happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christchurch call was one instance when the civil society got together
>>>>> and showed its depth of expertise and knowledge about Internet governance
>>>>> issues. So we definitely can get it together and act collectively. It's
>>>>> just a matter of how, which I am sure we solve if we keep at it and have
>>>>> these conversations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:42 AM Carolina Rossini <
>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with you Ian. A pool is needed among the BB members. There
>>>>> are more than 11.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And for the BB folks, and it’s is not only the mailing list. BB site
>>>>> has a lot of good material and statements that should be captured and
>>>>> saved.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry I could not make to the meeting. You can only imagine how busy I
>>>>> am.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tks Sheetal for moving this forward with all the delicate and
>>>>> sensitive touch it does deserve.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> C
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:20 AM ian.peter at ianpeter.com <
>>>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No poll needed. Best Bits closes down (their call). Former members
>>>>> join IGC individually. End of story.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But fixing the IGC constitution (a later step) is more complex as Sala
>>>>> points out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> To: "Sheetal Kumar" <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: "Bakhtiyor Avezdjanov" <ba2482 at columbia.edu>; "Lee W McKnight" <
>>>>> lmcknigh at syr.edu>; "Tapani Tarvainen" <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>;
>>>>> "Sivasubramanian M" <6.Internet at gmail.com>; "Akinremi Peter Taiwo" <
>>>>> compsoftnet at gmail.com>; "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: 14/06/2019 11:40:49 AM
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] The proposal for closing Bestbits and
>>>>> merging with IGC + next steps (was "Follow-on from survey on the future of
>>>>> Bestbits: next steps")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The IGC usually takes a poll led by elected co-coordinators to
>>>>> determine consensus. If post discussion and debate, consensusnis reached to
>>>>> merge then by all means.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody speaks for the IGC unless there is consensus, if you want to
>>>>> change the Charter, then there is a process to follow. It is meant to
>>>>> protect us. Members of Best Bits are members of the IGC anyway unless they
>>>>> left or unsubscribed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the challenges, I have seen is the loss of important IGC data
>>>>> from the old servers. Every organsiation has to evolve, advance but this
>>>>> has to be based on consensus, and papers for and against, proper discussion
>>>>> and debate. From the outset, all I have seen is a presumption where the IGC
>>>>> has been forcibly roped into discussing mergers without the consensus.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The co-coordinators have not set a strategic pathway for engagement in
>>>>> key international fora as the IGC in the HLP session although I was to see
>>>>> great geographical representation by some members of the IGC in the.forum
>>>>> in their individual capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also like to see the IGC working with the World Economic Forum
>>>>> etc and participating in the UN New York meetings, although some members
>>>>> participate in their organisational capacity. It is also significant that
>>>>> UNDESA reviews the global SDG projects and has a
>>>>> monitoring/evaluation/audit type role which it uses to review and report
>>>>> back to the UNGA.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On another separate, note, whilst Arden (bless her heart), and others
>>>>> have been royally pissed about making a dent in how global MNCs like
>>>>> Facebook behave in crisis, these are not new issues as they are.similar to
>>>>> historical discussion on the list about Brits imposing a temporary ban over
>>>>> a certain radius of the London bombing just as the Egyptians and others
>>>>> have done during times of national security. The Tech Accord which
>>>>> represents the committment and negotiations between MNCs, Tech Giants and
>>>>> some government reps as was shared by the former French Ambassador on Cyber
>>>>> affairs and others, it is on a transcript at a main session from last year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The most New Zealand can do is impose a law in New Zealand against
>>>>> these giants. Facebook's Mia in NZ who is based in the Sydney officer and
>>>>> global public policy counterparts have alot of work on their hands.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One view is that the threat to freedom of expression (which the IGC
>>>>> has always talked about is no respecter of whether you are from the East,
>>>>> West, South, North. The principles are well established in International
>>>>> law and Frank La Rue's report to the UN General Assembly which was endorsed
>>>>> is relevant. On the other hand, threats that Jeremy Malcolm and others have
>>>>> been raising on wordings and semantics on child pornography by a UN
>>>>> Drafting.committee show an example of new and emergent threats.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, even if Arden takes it to the UN, the UN is obliged and
>>>>> mandated not to duplicate work that is already done and to this end, the UN
>>>>> Secretary General's foresight in appointing the HLP and launching the
>>>>> report is key as geopolitical tensions are further heightened. I have yet
>>>>> to read the full HLP report, but if it is missing a FoX compoment, then a
>>>>> letter to the Co-Chairs, the UN Secretary General.may the faster non
>>>>> bureaucratic way to get traction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What giants like Facebook would fear is being broken up for
>>>>> regulation! Frankly Macron is hated in France just as Trump is hated in the
>>>>> US for imposing taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great for the IGC to host and convene a panel to explore
>>>>> this. I would recommend Bertrand from Internet Jurisdiction to co
>>>>> facilitate and moderate a geographically diverse panel and a representative
>>>>> from the Geneva Internet Platform. I know Bertrand is speaking at a
>>>>> European Court of Human Rights with others.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to take a step back and reflect as a community how we want to
>>>>> engage. We cannot be reactive and we have to stay ahead of the curve.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.36am so best be getting back to bed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sala
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Carolina Rossini *
>>>>>
>>>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Carolina Rossini *
>>>>>
>>>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar*
>>>>>
>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>>>>>
>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603
>>>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Sheetal Kumar*
>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 |
>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603
>>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> *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|
>>
>>
--
*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/20190624/6a765218/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list