CGI.br's position on NMI is strongly in line with Bill's view and with the ToR draft. Best Flavio > Hi Ed > >> On Apr 2, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Bill, >> >> So the NMI will largely be another talk shop without teeth that >> allows people who care about this stuff to, well, talk and network >> and talk? > > No it’s not for talking, that’s the IGF > >> Are we lacking in places to talk and network in the Internet >> governance world? > > Not to my knowledge, although whether they yield desirable dynamics > and results is another matter. > >> I don't mean to denigrate the hard work of those involved in this >> effort, I'm just trying to understand why we need the NMI, what niche >> it fills. > > The proposed functions are as described below. Again, a platform to > share info and coordinate projects consistent with the NM statement. > And a resource and connector so that when, e.g., a government says > we’d like to think about establishing national/regional MS mechanisms, > how do we do it, what have been the experiences, their only option > isn’t to get on a plane and go as CGI.br <http://CGI.br> or New > Zealand and ask because there’s info available, model laws, best > practices, etc. to refer to. Or when a developing country government > says we have a problem with spam or security or whatever and don’t > know how best to approach, there’s another answer besides ‘ask the > ITU,’ they can connect with actors via the platform that will help > steer them to relevant people orgs and resources and construct a > distributed network they can draw on in working toward solutions. Or > when someone wants to do a thing like the Friends of IGF project or > Bertrand’s or the Stanford IGF polling thing they can come there and > find potential partners and funders. Or when we want to take stock of > progress or the lack thereof in implementing the NM principles, > someone can propose a report and find partners for finance > organization etc. and the platform helps to disseminate. If you know > of another space where these and related functions mentioned below are > all being done now, you are well ahead of the rest of us. Please > provide pointers. > > Thanks > > Bill > > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Apr 2, 2015, at 9:46 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >>> Hi Milton >>> >>>> On Apr 1, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask] >>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> NMI’s ToR released on April Fool’s day! I love it! >>> >>> Yes, and the joke’s on you, Kieren and others who’ve been endlessly >>> fulminating that NMI is somehow a dastardly plot to take over the >>> universe, even though your colleagues who are involved have been >>> saying forever that no it’s not (why would we be involved in it if >>> it were?). What we propose to actually do, if facts matter, is >>> / >>> / >>> /http://comments.netmundial.org/iv-scope-of-activities/ / >>> / >>> / >>> /The Initiative will seek to *complement and support the work of >>> existing Internet governance dialogue *and normative processes and >>> institutions, including particularly the Internet Governance Forum >>> (IGF), as well as the technical Internet community. In addition, the >>> *Initiative will not be a policy-setting body.* >>> >>> The NETmundial Initiative will: >>> >>> Serve as a*neutral clearinghouse* for issues, solutions, expertise >>> and resources in Internet governance, and *provide a platform on >>> which diverse actors can solicit project partners and establish >>> collaborative relationships*. >>> >>> *Enable open, inclusive, balanced and collaborative communities to >>> share knowledge and expertise,* leading to best practices, >>> suggestions, innovation and solutions to address challenges >>> identified by the community. >>> >>> *Facilitate participation* in the Internet governance ecosystem, >>> particularly in the developing world, and *advance multistakeholder >>> processes at the national and regional levels.* >>> >>> Promote the application, evaluation, and implementation of the >>> Principles and *encourage community reporting* efforts. >>> >>> *Assist developing-country communities, governments and underserved >>> stakeholders by enabling capacity development efforts and in >>> networking* with relevant organizations and processes in order to >>> address gaps in policy development./ >>> >>> These elements distill both public feedback received on a >>> questionnaire and discussions that have taken place in various >>> spaces, e.g. at the Istanbul IGF, in the Ilves commission process, >>> at ICANN Singapore, and within NMI (reports of the ToR drafting >>> group meetings are at https://www.netmundial.org/2015-meetings). I >>> would very much encourage people to comment on each of these >>> elements on the website. If you think they can be useful or that >>> there is no need for them, say why. >>> >>> Either way, there's no dastardly plot here to take over the world. >>> No centralizing decision making about anything behind closed doors >>> in smoke filled rooms filled by the cigars of WEF fat cats (they are >>> barely involved). No taking away anything from the IGF, but rather >>> complementary work (we’ll probably hold an Open Forum in Brazil). >>> No big new organization, it’s three ICANN and CGI.br >>> <http://cgi.br/> staffers who have multiple other responsibilities >>> working very part time alongside a multistakeholder Coordination >>> Council that has five NCUC members and works by consensus. Fadi is >>> one member and has been not so involved either, so Fadi Fever >>> explanations of how things must really work don’t cut it. >>> >>> NMI is a space for people to say what projects they’re working on >>> (e.g. https://www.netmundial.org/contributions-list) and seek >>> partners, make connections, share information, etc. A core concern >>> is and always was contributing to capacity building for developing >>> country governments and stakeholders trying to deal with non-ICANN >>> issues. Either people will decide this can be useful and it will >>> sustain a place as a small facilitating connector in complex >>> institutional ecosystem, or they won’t, and we’ll say ok we tried >>> and it’ll drift off, not the end of the world. Either can happen, >>> especially given all the willful misrepresentations of this that >>> have become part of the zeitgeist. But it’s worth remembering that >>> when some of us started talking in 2004 about the need for a new >>> multistakeholder process for open dialogue and analysis on the broad >>> range of IG issues and institutions, the push back was immediate >>> from the some of same folks that have criticized this—e.g. ISOC and >>> the ICC—and yet eventually they came to see that the IGF was a >>> useful addition to the mix. That could happen here too if people >>> get beyond the original sins of a key protagonist in the initial >>> roll out of the idea. TBD. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ********************************************************* >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/> >>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), >>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/> >>> /Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap /http://goo.gl/sRR01q >>> ********************************************************* >>> >