[Chapter-delegates] A few updates on NMI

Wed Jan 7 09:11:34 PST 2015

Richard, Alejandro, Evan, Joly, Vint, Eric and all,

Thanks, first, for all your support in the last weeks. Your thoughtful engagement has been most helpful.

A couple of thoughts stimulated by this last string: the larger question we seem to be struggling with, on the one hand, is how to be true to our bottom up principles ensuring that the governance of ourselves on the Internet is not captured by a single entity or entities. On the other hand, we need ways to share information, collaborate, reach consensus and, at times, act collectively with respect to real and/or perceived issues that arise on/about/because of the Internet. Vint did a very fine report last year laying out an analytical framework for this kind of collaborative, decentralized "governance". I think, as I said in a note to you before the holiday, it would be good for ISOC to coalesce around a framework we could collectively embrace and advance-- as this debate is only going to heat up in the coming months.

It seems to me that, it is in this context, the NMI folks are proposing to create a "platform" for problem mapping and solution finding. As Vint suggests, there are other initiatives, including the IGF, that could take up that work. But NMI has stepped forward. While we have had initial difficulties with both the process by which the effort was launched and with the proposed structure, there has been some good faith listening to our concerns.  I have spoken with Virgilio and Rick from WEF and, of course, I reported out on the meeting with ICANN. It is, of course, true, that they nevertheless proceeded to appoint their council. NMI has announced, however, that this interim council would conduct, as we urged, a broad consultation with respect to its Charter.

In the spirit of collaboration that we hold dear, I think that it would be good to continue the conversation that Richard sparked here, but, perhaps, structure it in a way to invite more of our community to participate. We could then decide to contribute to the NMI consultation if there is a reason/agreement to do so. And, if not, we will, in any event, have worked through some important issues.

We announced before the holidays that we would hold an online Community Forum next week, January 15. As an agenda item, I propose a discussion on a way forward--with your thoughts, caveats, alternatives, etc in mind--to open the conversation up to others who are not as vocal as you all. (In that regard, more generally, we will get a proposed agenda around later today.) Does this  make sense?

 KB

On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:31 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org<mailto:evan at telly.org>> wrote:

On 7 January 2015 at 10:58, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com<mailto:apisanty at gmail.com>> wrote:
Joly, Evan,

regarding ITU silence... maybe it isn't so - http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/techtank/posts/2015/01/7-brotman-itu-convening-power#.VK0whMnFExo.linkedin

It wasn't me that mentioned it, but since the issue is raised...

Plus of course some principals in the ITU may see the healthy discrepancy within the Internet community as a struggle and decide to let us tear each other to pieces.

This makes sense.

That will not happen; we will not grant that wish.

Agreed, but this demands a certain amount of resolve. The temptation to "well it's already there, we need to be on the inside no matter how badly designed or intended it is" is strong to some.

The responses from NMI, no matter how arrogant (and its core apologists have been extremely so), indicate that it is quite aware that without legitimacy and buy-in it is nothing. The maintenance of the "empty seats" indicates false confidence that we will eventually be worn down into joining this "bottom up" organization on its terms. In a tactic perfected and widely used by ICANN, it has offered to "listen" to us, only to the extent our input does not affect the established core agenda.

This need not and should not happen.

There clearly has been some thought into what is the minimum necessary "engagement" to buy our acceptance: The many paternalistic "clarifications". The meeting with ICANN that was revealed to be all show and no substance. The token financial contribution to the IGF in lieu of any true recognition of the redundancies.

So far ISOC has seen through this. I encourage and support its reaction to date.

- Evan

PS: Latest civil society org to speak out has been the EFF, which considers NMI<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/internet-governance-and-netmundial-initiative-flawed-attempt-turning-words-action> to be harmless, but useless.
_______________________________________________
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/20150107/e34c2fc0/attachment.htm>