[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Statement on the NETmundial Initiative

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear Olivier,

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

>
> On 17/11/2014 04:39, Greg Wood wrote:
> > At the conclusion of its meeting in Honolulu, the Internet Society Board
> of Trustees issued the following statement:
> >
> > We will follow up in the next week with more details on the community
> dialogue.
> >
> > -Greg
> >
> >
> https://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-netmundial-initiative
>
> Thanks for this pointer, Greg. I note that there's been much discussion
> on the ISOC web group platform as well but for the sake of convenience
> will reply here. I am sorry to not have followed this more closely but
> am engulfed in the NTIA functions Stewardship Transition discussions
> hence which appear to be more of a priority at the moment.
>
> I am in two minds about the Statement. I do not disapprove it. However I
> do have concerns about "where do we go from here?" Like many people in
> our multistakeholder space I felt uneasy about this initiative landing
> in the WEF in a rather top down manner but could understand *some* of
> the rationale behind it, which I felt related to the funding of the
> initiative in particular. WEF has deep pockets.
>

​I strongly support the involvement of the WEF, but NOT for ease of
funding. Participation of the WEF implies that the wider business community
from across various business sectors get involved. With the participation
of WEF,  Business participation in Internet Governance space extends beyond
Domain / IT sector.  The four or five million that it might take to
organize the NETmundial is not otherwise impossible for the present
participants of the Internet Governance, so it is not a dire need for funds
that brought the WEF to NETmundial.


>
> So where do we go from here and does ISOC's rejection of the initiative
> indicate a deeper disagreement between the I* organisations?


​If there is a deeper or unseen or unspoken disagreement between the I*
organization​ which is manifesting by way of a formal statement, then that
is what needs to be attended to. Time for a joint ISOC/ICANN Board - Senior
Staff meeting for a start, later to include all I* organizations?



> Has ISOC
> clearly closed the door?


>From a distance, ​I don't think so. ​



> More importantly where are we (as in all
> defenders of the core principles which are listed in the ISOC Boar
> ​d​
>
> Statement) going to find the funding for our continued defence of these
> principles?
>

​I feel that the way forward is to be part of this initiative, also help
bring in the participation of the Civil Society, but at the same time
ensure that the NETmundial framework allows wider participation and all
round improvement year after year, with a clear assurance that no single
stakeholder group would exercise a disproportionate influence in the long
run.

It is WEF this year. Could it include a large global foundation or two next
year? Would it have room to include one or two Governments as supporters?
Or include the Commonwealth or G20 or the Council of Europe next year? Or
do we insist on concluding that NETmundial has reached its ultimate shape?

We need to understand that NETmundial is in its formative stage. At this
stage, an individual, a small group of individuals, or an organization or
two, take the initiative, and this act of taking the initiative is prone to
be misunderstood as an attempt to get to centerstage.

The motives might actually be larger than what is visible.

Sivasubramanian M



>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
> (own views)
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20141119/ae7d4f0c/attachment.htm>