<html><body>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;"> </div>
<div style="font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 13px;
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
<div>+1</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">-----Original
Message-----<br />
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA><br />
To: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br />
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:14:46 -0400<br />
Subject: Re: Forum NETmundial Initiative: Food for Thought<br />
<div style="font-family: monospace, courier new, courier">I was at the real
Netmundial, and for all its flaws, I thought it was an<br />
impressive attempt to do the thing right. My takeaway from that was<br
/>
that Civil Society, despite ten years of getting organized at IGF, was<br />
not ready to fight off the inevitable power grab which was coming, and<br />
which frankly we saw acted out in the closing hours of the deliberations<br
/>
over the final texts. I am afraid my view of what is going on at
the<br />
WEF is much less optimistic. I would like to know whether Fadi led
us<br />
into this willingly, or made an astute executive decision that WEF was<br />
happening and ICANN had to be there. Given the lack of transparency<br
/>
thus far, I am not optimistic about the answer to that one.<br />
I think Civil Society ought to hold out for no more proliferation of<br />
fora, which can only weaken our already weak position. Build the
IGF<br />
into a proper, funded, multi-stakeholder organization. In the<br />
meantime, clean up ICANN so that it can take a leadership role, and<br />
that, in my opinion, is going to take lots of work.<br />
Let us not go willing or silently into the WEF process. Apparently<br
/>
nothing happened this morning, the time to tune in is close of day when<br />
we get to the real agenda. May the force be with our few reps there
at<br />
the meeting, who will have to fight hard.<br />
Kind regards,<br />
Stephanie Perrin<br />
<br />
On 14-08-28 10:50 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:<br />
> Forum NETmundial Initiative: Food for Thought<br />
><br />
> With the maturing of the Internet ecosystem, in addition to the land<br
/>
> rush to grab new gTLDs, there is a land rush to grab control of<br />
> aspects of global Internet governance, and these go well beyond the<br
/>
> proposed internal changes in the balance of power within ICANN, as<br />
> flagged by Robin’s comments with regard to ICANN and GAC. The
900<br />
> pound gorilla quickly growing in a closet in Switzerland is the new<br
/>
> NETmundial Initiative being hosted into existence by the Swiss based<br
/>
> World Economic Forum. It builds on the Brazilian NETmundial event
but<br />
> has no formal relationship with that event.<br />
><br />
> <a href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_2NETmundialInitiativeFAQ.pdf"
target="_blank">
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_2NETmundialInitiativeFAQ.pdf</a><br />
><br />
> In the words of the Forum "...the Initiative will seek to make
a<br />
> contribution to the positive evolution of multistakeholder Internet<br
/>
> governance...". Some insight into how this will be pursued is<br />
> reflected in Forum’s approach to this task, drawing on its<br />
> "leader-level multistakeholder communities". The participants
list for<br />
> in its initial scoping workshop today (August 28, 2014) is at:<br />
><br />
> <a
href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_4NETmundialListofParticipants.pdf"
target="_blank">
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_4NETmundialListofParticipants.pdf</a><br />
><br />
> The rationale for this Forum effort notes (no surprise to any of us)<br
/>
> that: "There are a range of non-technical policy
challenges…. which<br />
> would benefit from the participation of economic, security, human<br />
> rights and other institutions and experts in a multistakeholder<br />
> setting in order to strengthen understanding, enhance trust and<br />
> identify potential areas of common ground".<br />
><br />
> The second area of effort (again no surprise to any of us) is to<br />
> galvanize support for capacity building for: "a) to support
developing<br />
> countries which wish to enhance their access to the Internet and
build<br />
> their own multistakeholder governance frameworks; and b) to explore<br
/>
> ways to strengthen the capacity of the decentralized Internet<br />
> governance ecosystem to respond through distributed governance
groups<br />
> to specific issues or problems that arise, including those
encountered<br />
> by developing countries which may not be in a position to readily<br />
> identify relevant expertise and resources."<br />
><br />
> The plan is to follow today’s meeting with "…a six
month period of<br />
> consultations with a broad range of stakeholders and experts
regarding<br />
> whether and how to establish a dedicated organizational structure to<br
/>
> support these activities going forward, whether or not connected to<br
/>
> the Forum."<br />
><br />
> What are we to take away from this? I will note only two of several<br
/>
> likely outcomes where civil society will have to remain aware and<br />
> engaged.<br />
><br />
> 1. There is a high probability of the establishment of a new<br />
> "dedicated organizational structure" as a significant
Internet<br />
> governance player.<br />
> 2. The tendency will be toward a "leader-level" (top-centric)
notion<br />
> of multistakeholder engagement and a focus on "the
transnational<br />
> nature of the Internet" [Forum wording]<br />
><br />
> From a civil society perspective many of the challenges and tasks
here<br />
> are similar to those faced within ICANN’s multistakeholder
processes,<br />
> with one major exception. There is the issue of whether or not to<br />
> establish a dedicated organization. Civil society could argue that<br />
> there are already adequate venues to address the Forum’s
concerns, but<br />
> that would probably be counter-productive. There will be bottom up<br />
> multistakeholder involvement via the public comment process, but
that<br />
> is a limited option in terms of actual decision making here.<br />
><br />
> As an opening position for civil society dialogue around this<br />
> initiative I would suggest that civil society approach the
initiative<br />
> at three levels:<br />
><br />
> 1. It insists in a full dialogue on what sort of multistakeholder<br />
> engagement model is being considered if such an organization is to
be<br />
> established.<br />
> 2. It stresses full transparency and accountability along with a
broad<br />
> definition of who constitute stakeholders and their roles in
decision<br />
> making.<br />
> 3. At the same time civil society organizations: (a) look inward to<br
/>
> increase the transparency and accountability of their own leadership
–<br />
> some of whom are part of the "leader-level" group in this
Forum<br />
> initiative; and (b) turn more of their efforts toward deepening and<br
/>
> broadening awareness and engagement of their own constituencies in<br />
> these deliberations and the core issues at stake.<br />
><br />
> A significant part of this civil society effort would focus on the<br />
> second area of effort in this Forum NETmundial Initiative. That is<br />
> capacity building work and it is needed independent of the<br />
> establishment a dedicated organization as a result of these efforts.<br
/>
><br />
> As I say above….food for thought…to feed the dialogue.<br
/>
><br />
> Sam L.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body></html>