Hi ! +1@DeeDee Well think ! Cheers ! -Olévié- 2014-05-01 15:09 GMT+00:00 DeeDee Halleck <[log in to unmask]>: > I very much appreciated the ability to participate via remote in Net > Mundial. Very well done, especially the convening and q and a from the > group participants from around the world. Quite amazing. Way beyond WSIS. > > In reviewing the meeting, the most astounding thing I heard, however, was > the amount of money that ICANN has received recently from the expansion of > GTLDs. Hundreds of millions. Did anyone address how this money is being > spent/invested? > Is Fadi's suggestion of a prize one way he thinks of dispensing tokens of > this largesse? > That's not exactly a bottom-up kind of use. > Instead of prizes (and staff expansion) is any of that money going to be > used to provide assistance for better geographic (and economic) diverse > participation not just in ICANN meetings but in developing internet access > and infrastructure in the 99% world? > > DeeDee > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:02 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Apr 27, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Robin, >> > >> > thanks for your excellent analysis. I did follow the events only as a >> remote participant (so I do not have all information) but agree with most >> what you have said in the mail below. It is very helpful to see both the >> strength of the "big picture" and the weaknesses in some details. I also >> agree that the principle part is the big step forward. The roadmap part is >> more "stumbling" forward. >> >> I understand the interest in the wordsmithing of nonbinding principles, >> but it also would be useful to remember that there are some potentially >> foundational bits in the roadmap, e.g. on national MS processes, IGF >> strengthening, clearing house/observatory, jurisdiction, etc. These sorts >> of institutional issues did not receive much comment from civil society >> participants, in contrast to the past decade in IGF and related >> discussions, but some of them could well lead to actual activities. >> >> > But the whole process - compared with WSIS or WCIT - is encouraging >> from a civil society´s perspective. >> >> Yes >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> > >> > Best wishes >> > >> > wolfgang >> > >> > Here is what is my conclusion (as a renmote participant) from the >> meeting. Unfortunately in German only. >> > >> http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/net-mundial-in-s-o-paulo-der-taegliche-kampf-um-die-freiheit-im-netz-12910313.html< >> http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/net-mundial-in-s-o-paulo-der-taegliche-kampf-um-die-freiheit-im-netz-12910313.html >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > Von: [log in to unmask] im Auftrag von Robin Gross >> > Gesendet: So 27.04.2014 03:44 >> > An: [log in to unmask]; Izumi AIZU >> > Cc: Adam Peake; Stephanie Perrin; <[log in to unmask]> < >> NCSG List >> > Betreff: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >> > >> > >> > A few thoughts on the outcome doc and Netmundial generally, after the >> benefit of a plane ride to process the experience. Overall, there are some >> truly amazing principles supported in the Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder >> Statement that we as civil society should proud of and especially our >> representatives who got this achievement. >> > >> > The Internet governance principles of human rights, democracy, >> equality, openness, transparency, accountability, decentralized, Internet >> as global resource to be managed in the public interest are all supported >> in the final outcome document. These are all truly amazing achievements >> and an important pivot point in the evolution of the global governance >> ecosystem. >> > >> > Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most >> contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless >> innovation, intermediary liability, net neutrality, and separation of >> policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these issues were mentioned >> in the governance document itself, is a significant advancement (except for >> the ode to copyright). So on some key substantive policy issues, the >> document reflects a remarkable achievement, despite a few critical losses >> where civil society got out-lobbied, out-muscled, & out-manuevered in the >> last minute behind less transparent and less organized processes on the >> specific wording. >> > >> > But the simple fact the govts and biz had to negotiate with civil >> society over key language (and wait in line to speak) is another rather >> remarkable step-forward. There was more transparency over the drafting and >> adoption of the document than there is in other global governance regimes >> where we can't see the drafting at all, since a few of us could watch. We >> now see the need for improved transparency in these key critical >> decision-making moments in this going forward. And the process frustrated >> and impeded civil society, who tends not be in current decision-making >> positions on these important process decisions. >> > >> > I don't want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see the >> really great parts of this document, and that in many ways, this was a very >> positive step forward in the evolution of the Internet governance and >> Internet freedom. >> > >> > Yes, civil society was under-represented on panels, in committees, and >> key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - and we need to keep >> pushing on that point too; this doc supports "equality", so we've got our >> hook for that goal here too. >> > >> > On balance, this document is a pretty good starting point for further >> discussions on Internet governance and its positive evolution. >> > >> > My 2 cents, >> > Robin >> > >> > >> > On Apr 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> > >> > >> > Thank you Stephanie and Adam for your clarifications. >> > >> > >> > I still have the "impression" that the last session was not quite >> as open as it could be. >> > >> > Firstly, there was not announcement, or explanation, as to how >> the final document would be dealt by HLMC in advance, or even on the fly, >> for those who were in the Main Room. >> > >> > Yes, it would be much better to have live streaming and scribed >> texts online for those who were not in the small drafting room. >> > >> > I would say even in the small room, it was VERY difficult to >> figure out what exactly they are discussing unless you have good hearing >> ability and understanding of the English since they were not using the >> microphone and sometimes audiences making some noise. >> > It was semi transparent in my view. >> > >> > I do not mean for criticism, but for lessons going forward. >> > >> > More than 10 years ago, we had WSIS prep meeting in Tokyo and we >> insisted that Drafting session by governments plus civil society and >> private sector be open to all who want to participate. It worked well. We >> had big screen in front of all, and everyone could speak up once chair >> allow, there were some distinction between the official member of the >> drafting committee and others, but not much, In the end the result of this >> informal drafting committee was sent to the government only negotiation, >> which was open and transparent, but no-government stakeholders including >> IGOs could have no say. >> > We asked government people to "honor" the works of this >> multistakeholder draft document and in my view we got 85%, if not 90%. >> (could not get good language for Human rights and Freedom of Expression). >> > >> > Now, after more than 10 years, we have, as I wrote, better online >> tool, much better working experience among CS members with other >> stakeholders, better recognition on CS and MSH to advance our work. >> > >> > As Jeanette and Ian point out, we could have done better if we >> had better prepared and also better prepared on the fly. >> > >> > But overall, I think civil society did a very good job, together >> with Brazilian host, but also I like to mention the other stakeholders, >> governments, business, tech and academic community also deserve the >> recognition together, >> > >> > As we were discussing during the dinner right after the closure, >> we could and should understand some government folks who really had >> constraints under their mandate, therefore had to put their reservations on >> the record. And even so, I think their behaviors were not that disruptive, >> at the last stage, to honor Brazilian host and also all of us engaged there. >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-04-27 2:30 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]>: >> > >> > >> > The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But >> it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the >> drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't >> thought of at the time. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> > >> > > Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps >> for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute >> rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually >> arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it >> happens. >> > > Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks >> should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will >> achieved by all the open drafting sessions....this is really an unusual way >> to do business. Rome wasn't built in a day... >> > > Stephanie Perrin >> > > Cheers stephanie >> > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU <[log in to unmask]<mailto: >> aizu@anr..org> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >> > >> >> > >> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion >> about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the >> preceding process. >> > >> >> > >> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome >> document open to observers? >> > >> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach >> me). >> > >> >> > >> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the >> future similar event, to use the >> > >> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >> > >> >> > >> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using >> projectors to put the text on the screen, >> > >> it will be very effective to use the online notepad >> (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. >> Everyone online can see the process of changing >> > >> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the >> changes. >> > >> >> > >> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or >> those in different rooms of the same >> > >> venue while small number of drafting committee people >> do the work, that make it transparent. >> > >> >> > >> Just a suggestion. >> > >> >> > >> izumi >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter < >> [log in to unmask]>: >> > >> and I should have added - thanks too to the BestBits >> people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that >> we could not have worked together so well at the main event. >> > >> >> > >> From: Ian Peter >> > >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >> > >> To: [log in to unmask] ; >> [log in to unmask] >> > >> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >> > >> >> > >> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into >> travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this >> conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked >> incredibly well together - far more so than other constituencies. It was >> great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There >> was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers >> on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the >> group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject >> etc. great team work. >> > >> >> > >> As regards the results - this was version 0.1 of this >> very interesting - and i think promising - version of multistakeholder >> consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a >> few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or >> two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has >> some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >> > >> >> > >> As regards the outputs - as the civil society >> statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally >> that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after >> the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and >> passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an >> example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one >> colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a >> party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about >> the detail of that. >> > >> >> > >> But for now - there was much good as well, and it was >> fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our >> Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a >> fantastic job - ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked >> long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I >> will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job >> extremely well done. >> > >> >> > >> Now to wind down after three days of intense >> activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. >> > >> >> > >> Ian Peter >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> [log in to unmask] >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, >> see: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> >> > >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> [log in to unmask] >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, >> see: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> >> > >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> > >> >> > >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama >> University, Tokyo >> > >> >> > >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> > >> Japan >> > >> * * * * * >> > >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> > >> www.anr.org < >> http://www.anr.org/> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > >> [log in to unmask] >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, >> see: >> > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> >> > >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > [log in to unmask] >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> Izumi Aizu << >> > >> > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> > >> > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> > Japan >> > * * * * * >> > << Writing the Future of the History >> >> > www.anr.org <http://www.anr.org/> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > [log in to unmask] >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> *********************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************** >> > > > > -- > http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org > -- Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org) PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/) SG de ESTETIC (http://www.estetic.tg) Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25 Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo