I. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
The NETmundial meeting held in São Paulo, Brazil, in April 2014, provided a reference for governments, private sector, civil society, technical community and academia from around the world to address Internet governance challenges. Its concluding document, the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement (“Statement”), recognized that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the public interest. It also reaffirmed the importance of human rights to the Internet and provided a set of Internet governance Principles, as well as a Roadmap for the future evolution and improvement of the existing Internet governance framework, ensuring the full involvement of all stakeholders.
The NETmundial Initiative recognizes the NETmundial Internet governance process Principles: multistakeholder, open, participative, consensus-driven, transparent, accountable, inclusive and equitable, distributed, collaborative, and enable meaningful participation.
The NETmundial Initiative (“Initiative”) seeks to carry forward the cooperative spirit of São Paulo by enabling opportunities for collaboration and cooperation between all stakeholders.
In the Introduction and Context part, point 2 starts with .
I suggest to put in brackets the word as it is done the the point 3.
Thus, the point 2 will start . And the point 3 will start with the word
I don’t see any relation between this document and the numerous suggestions and comments previously posted. In particular, I note that this document does not at all take into account my proposals regarding the Terms of Reference. I’m not able to find on your web site the various proposals, including mine, made regarding the ToR. But I presume that you have access to them and can find my previous proposals, which seem to me to still be perfectly valid and worth considering, even if you have not yet considered them.
It appears to me that this process is not a bottom-up process, but a top-down process. There is nothing inherently wrong in top-down processes, they can be efficient and effective. But let’s be clear about what type of process is being used here.
More fundamentally, I am among the many commentators that expressed skepticism regarding the need, or even the advisability, of this initiative. I note that all those comments have been ignored and that the initiative is proceeding anyway. The initiators are of course entitled to do that, but then they should not be surprised if the skeptics opt out of the process, given that the process is ignoring their inputs.
L’initiative me semble pertinente en ce sens qu’elle entend explorer les possibilités de collaboration et de coopération entre toutes les parties prenantes. Si cette vision est mise en oeuvre d’intéressants résultats seront atteints
internet is global resource and open people net work echo system.
ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association) supports the Draft Terms of Reference as written. This draft reflects the issues raised by ETNO in the previous consultation round of February 2015.
A comment/question on the process more than the substance at this point. Is there a page or document that details how comments will be considered and accepted/rejected? One concern I have heard expressed is that people will make suggestions or feedback and then have no idea how they are processed. We saw some of the with the original NETmundial and without increased transparency around this, some may become even more skeptical than they already are.
I would like to endorse this comment!
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wishes to again voice concern regarding the creation of the NETmundial Initiative (NMI). We greatly appreciate the willingness of those tasked with supporting NMI to engage and address our concerns and look forward to continued dialogue.
However, based on our understanding of previous comments there appears to be very limited support, if any positive support exists at all, for the creation of a new initiative. In order to stay true to the spirit of the NETmundial Statement, we strongly suggest creating a new comment period to address whether NMI needs to exist and how it should be structured, if broad community support is in fact shown. It remains unclear that there is a need or desire by the multistakeholder community for a new forum, when resources could perhaps be better dedicated to improving existing venues.
In the event NMI moves forward, it must not be used as a forum for making binding decisions related to Internet governance, policy or standards. While we appreciate the indication the NMI will not be a policy-setting body itself, it is still ambiguous as to whether NMI may fund projects that in turn attempt to set policy or create standards or how any funding mechanisms might operate.
Finally we want to emphasize the point that NMI ought not to become a solution in search of a problem; the fact that funding may be available for certain activities/issues should not be taken as an indication that those items have merit.
Our main reason for joining NMI was for a focus on taking the NETmundial principles forward, to try and introduce more coherence and public interest in IG. We really hoped that the NMI would help us get closer to having rights-centred principles that can be adopted and applied across the IG universe, building on NETmundial. A way of making it a widely accepted norm that the internet should be governed in the public interest.
On a more general note, we suggest that the NMI organisers fund a third party to function as secretariat rather than to second staff to it, thereby ensuring the staff is accountable to council rather than to their respective employers.
NETmundial meeting in Brazil last year saw participation from different stakeholder communities to deliberate on issues, and potential solutions, pertaining to Internet governance ecosystem. The two days efforts are laudable, with intense deliberations on core issues and subject with an outcome document highlighting Internet governance Principles, as well as a Roadmap for the future evolution and improvement of the existing Internet governance framework. NETmundial initiative appears to be a step to take forward the work achieved at NETmundial meeting. With experience thus gained, and with World Economic Forum (WEF), ICANN and Internet Steering Committee of Brazil (CGI.Br) joining hands for NETmundial Initiative (NMI) to advance the work forward, it will be insightful to learn what role NETmundial Initiative envisages in overall Internet governance ecosystem. There are numerous platforms such as ICANN, IGF, WSIS, UNCSTD, ISOC, RIR meetings etc. on which IG matters are discussed. Will NMI work in a manner so as to avoid duplication of efforts at existing platforms, thus saving time, cost and resources or will it be just become another venue without any mandate to deliver any concrete work on Internet governance issues and challenges – will be determined from the scope and activities undertaken by NMI. Also, till date, no concrete exercise has been undertaken to completely identify and segregate all the technical and policy work in IG space at various forums. Any activity undertaken by NMI in this respect would be highly appreciable. This will help NMI become a unique action oriented platform.
ISOC Submission -‐ NMI Consultation on the draft Terms of Reference of its Coordination Council
The Internet Society is actively engaged in global Internet governance discussions and it values opportunities for multistakeholder discussions and consultations on the evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, as well as on new initiatives. We welcome the opportunity given to the Internet community to comment on the draft terms of reference of the NETmundial Initiative (NMI) Coordination Council.
In line with our commitment to consult our members on critical Internet governance issues, the Internet Society conducted a survey on Internet governance in February 2015 that included questions on NMI. The survey attracted over 800 participants.
This approach followed the statement (http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-netmundial-initiative) issued by our Board in November 2014, asking ISOC to convene a dialogue on this matter.
In the same spirit, we consulted our community on the draft terms of reference of the NMI Coordination Council. As a contribution to this consultation we would like to share the ISOC Internet Governance Survey Report with the NMI organizers (see link below), as well as the following comments and suggestions.
At first sight, we are pleased that NMI will not be a policy-‐setting body, and we believe the initiative should maintain this trajectory. However, it seems the initiative may be overlapping with other efforts, especially with regards to existing capacity building initiatives.
Furthermore, we reiterate the points made in the joint statement (http://www.internetsociety.org/news/joint-statement-isoc-icann-meeting) from the ISOC/ICANN meeting held on 17 December 2014, where the ISOC attendees, the IAB and IETF chairs questioned the need for a Coordination Council. They would have
In addition, we echo the statement made by our Board in November 2014 “that there is no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues that may arise”. They would have rather seen “the structure defined after setting the terms of reference and scope of the work.” They felt indeed that “more work needs to be done by NMI and with the various communities involved.”
In this sense, we encourage NMI leaders to support existing bottom-‐up, global and local Internet governance initiatives, such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). As the global IGF kick-‐starts work on its 2015 Best Practices and inter-‐sessional work on “Connecting the Next Billion”, it seems that NMI resources could usefully support these efforts.
The Internet Society is committed to supporting the IGF and we encourage all stakeholders to engage in preparations whether at the local or global level.
ISOC Internet Governance Survey Report: http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/internet-governance-survey-2015