NETmundial Initiative Draft Terms of Reference

Skip to Content | Skip to Table of Contents

Navigate
Content
Discuss

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.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on block 2 6

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.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on block 3 6

The NETmundial Initiative (“Initiative”) seeks to carry forward the cooperative spirit of São Paulo by enabling opportunities for collaboration and cooperation between all stakeholders.

Page 1

Comments
Activity

Comments

Comments are closed

11 Comments on the whole page

Lianna Galstyan April 2, 2015 at 6:32 AM

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
Richard Hill April 3, 2015 at 8:36 AM

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.
Ababacar Diop April 9, 2015 at 6:12 PM

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
kanumurisraju April 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM

internet is global resource and open people net work echo system.
ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) April 27, 2015 at 2:33 PM

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.
Jim Prendergast April 27, 2015 at 2:44 PM

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.
1. Oksana Prykhodko May 1, 2015 at 8:34 AM
  
  I would like to endorse this comment!
U.S. Chamber of Commerce April 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM

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.
Association for Progressive Communications May 1, 2015 at 10:17 PM

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.
NASSCOM May 4, 2015 at 2:03 PM

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.
Internet Society May 4, 2015 at 3:17 PM

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

10 Comments on block 1

Romina Florencia Cabrera ( Academia) April 6, 2015 at 7:05 PM

Estimados, me parece más que positivo el proyecto de Net Mundial y su materialización. Creo humildemente que es una oportunidad para aumentar las voces de la Sociedad Civil en el modelo de Gobernanza de Internet y que se profundice en la promoción y Defensa de los DDHH en Internet, fundados en el valor y dignidad de la persona humana, sobre toda evolución tecnológica al servicio de la comunidad, por beneficiosa que sea. Por ejemplo: los avances en medicina pueden ser muy óptimos, pero si se deja de lado la humanidad del paciente, perdemos todo sentido de los DDHH. Lo mismo sucede con el mundo Informático, la Infoética debe estar más presente que nunca. Cordiales saludos, los felicito de todo corazón.
Susan Aaronson April 10, 2015 at 7:51 PM

1.Why is such a platform needed? We have a multitude of multi-stakeholder initiatives while governments seem to simultaneously be moving internet governance towards government only venues such as trade agreements, UN, ITU?

2. Under what norms will Netmunidal Initiative function? Who is funding NI? How ill NI intersect with other bodies?
Leon Sanchez April 11, 2015 at 2:47 AM

I would say that the Statement didn’t provide a set of Internet governance principles but instead suggested a set of principles which were identified by the participants as being common ground for everyone involved in the meeting. The reason I suggest this is that NETmundial had as one of its principles not to be conclusive or binding. This wording would suggest the opposite in my view and therefore I believe that changing the word “provided” for “suggested” would be appropriate and in line with the principles of NETmundial
Robert Shlegel April 14, 2015 at 5:45 PM

I totally agree with the declared objectives such as evolution and improvement of the existing Internet governance structure given participation of all stakeholders.

However, I regret to admit, that the draft doesn’t meet modern challenges facing the Internet community. Today it is not enough just to come to a consensus on the importance of an Internet regulation. First, it is necessary to define clearly challenges facing the global network such as probability of fragmentation of a single coherent web space and widespread violation of human rights under the guise of security. Second, it should be defined how the process of combatting the threats will be organized.

It is not enough to declare the principle of cooperation between all stakeholders. We should admit that a complete consensus is impossible, that focused on it we are never going to get under way; we will continue to discuss problems instead of trying to solve them. It should be recognized that states of all stakeholders have both greater responsibility for decisions in the regulation sphere and more authoritative opinion than private organizations or individuals.

It is necessary to identify and fix areas of responsibility of all stakeholders and to create an order settling how concrete proposals that regulate relations on the Internet are elaborated and accepted; thereby, as a result of its work NetMundial would come to really existing legal solutions to existing problems.
1. Oksana Prykhodko May 1, 2015 at 9:20 AM
  
  There is no consensus either “on the importance of an Internet regulation” or on “states of all stakeholders have both greater responsibility for decisions in the regulation sphere and more authoritative opinion than private organizations or individuals”. Consensus on “Internet Governance principles” is possible, but only after clear understanding of real interests of each stakeholder.
Liyun HAN April 17, 2015 at 6:18 AM

ToR shall be a simple but relatively long-term document, aiming guarantee NMI to meet the commitments according to the basic spirit as well as critical principles addressed in the ToR. Furthermore, the ToR and NMI per se shall be sustainable, catching the time and current challenges, and be able to be improved, innovated and to solve realistic problems.
Walid Al-Saqaf April 20, 2015 at 9:17 AM

One of the fundamental challenges in this statement is the word “public interest” because defining it will be extremely subjective based on whom you ask. ICANN is still working on a definition and has yet to come up with one that would satisfy the community. Governments often define public interests based on what they view is important to maintain security and rule of law, which could trigger mass surveillance, censorship and the likes.
DotConnectAfrica Trust April 29, 2015 at 3:28 PM

General Introduction

NETMundial Initiative (NMI) came out of the ‘Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance’ that took place in Sao Paulo, Brazil in April 2014.
The draft Terms of Reference (TOR) document has been issued following the working meeting of the Inaugural Coordination Council of the NMI at Stanford University at the end of March 2015 which convened to discuss the organization, role and activities of NMI.

However, in terms of what it is about, and what its general and specific objectives are, the NMI remains an inchoate idea. The organization of the NMI, its role and activities remain undefined. It has no clear mandate and what the organization is about is still being deliberated with the hope of fleshing out the idea as it is ‘iteratively developed’ through public discussions and comments collection with the hope of formulating a clear idea on how move forward the implementation process of the NETMundial Principles. It is doubtful whether an organization can be created if it lacks a clear objective that would lead to the formulation of its mandate, and strategic mission and vision.

The Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for the NETMundial Initiative is heavy on circuitous rhetoric and vague descriptions but actually short on specifics.
Helga Mieling April 30, 2015 at 9:45 AM

The NETmundial Statement was adopted at Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance on 23/24 April 2014 in Sao Paulo by consensus, providing a positive impetus for further evolution within the UN system and within the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN, in view of the extension of the Affirmation of Commitments regarding IANA/ICANN.

Building on the outcome document of the NETmundial Conference in Sao Paulo (the “NETmundial Statement”), the top issues on which further multi-stakeholder work could be undertaken are:
1) Further improvements in inclusiveness, accountability and internationalization of ICANN and IANA functions,
2) support of the NETmundial principles as the basis of Internet Governance, underpinning human rights and fundamental freedoms, ensuring transparent, democratic and accountable structures that are globalised to ensure that all communities are included,
3) support of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the multi-stakeholder model,
4) ensuring due process and rule of law in international cooperation,
5) clarifying jurisdictional issues.

Further multi-stakeholder work, however, does not necessarily need to be based on specific ToR and could be carried out within the existing structure.

Challenges the NMI could help to address:

Further multi-stakeholder work could be carried out within the existing fora, contributing to the further development of the Internet Governance institutional ecosystem, building on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and supporting the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on mapping global internet public policy issues.

The NETmundial Initiative should neither replace nor duplicate existing fora. It should not be perceived as a new Internet Governance structure. It could, however, support the existing internet Governance structure on a strategic level, not on an operational level.

Regarding the overall substantive focus of the NETmundial Initiative:

The NETmundial Initiative should not duplicate existing fora, it should focus on the principles and on the roadmap of the NETmundial Statement.

Activities on the NMI that would serve as an effective follow-up on the principles, proposals and issues contained in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement:

The NETmundial Initiative should monitor progress in follow-up and application of the NETmundial principles according to the roadmap, maintaining the spirit of cooperation and multi-stakeholderism.

The NETmundial Initiative could best contribute to strengthening regional, national and global IGF processes:

• Expand international support to the outcome of NETmundial in Sao Paulo on a multi-stakeholder level
•Identify potential funding opportunities especially for the IGF,
– cooperation with the IGF Support Association, further evolution within the UN system and within the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN.

The main deliverables of the Netmundial Initiative should be:
•Monitor and report annually on progress made in implementing the recommendations of the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement,
•Actively assist with broadening the participation of developing country governments and stakeholders in networking with relevant organizations and processes in order to address gaps in policy development (in line with the ongoing processes at UN level, especially in achieving the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable development goals).
•Provide inputs and support for discussion in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), e.g. at the annual meeting or the new intersessional activities.
•Support the renewal of the mandate of the IGF.

On roles and responsibilities of a possible Inaugural Coordination Council:

Further multi-stakeholder work could be carried out within the existing relevant fora, not necessarily by a specific Inaugural Coordination Council.

Further multi-stakeholder work within the UN system and within the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN should focus on promoting global support of the NETmundial outcome, cooperating with other relevant fora, especially with the IGF, not on an operational, but on strategic level.

Other roles and responsibilities:
Provide global support for the NETmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement, the IGF and related processes, not on an operational, but on strategic level.

On the scope and conduct of the NETmundial Initiative that may be helpful with regard to drafting initial Terms of References:
Further multi-stakeholder work should emphasize the key issues: transparent, democratic, participative cooperation based on multistakeholderism, human rights and fundamental freedoms, in the public interest. This work does not necessarily need to be based on specific ToR and could be carried out within the existing structure.
NASSCOM May 4, 2015 at 2:04 PM

• The NETmundial Multistakeholder outcome document was endorsed by various stakeholders on different issues, but cannot be labelled as ‘ensuring full involvement of all stakeholders’. Some conflicting views and inputs were ‘ignored’, including from a few federal governments like Russia, India etc., for discussions, in an attempt produce outcome document within 48 hours.
• As highlight in block 1, the term ‘public interest’ is highly subjective, and varies from different viewpoints. Currently it is being debated in Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability and there is work being undertaken at this forum to develop stress tests to determine ‘public interest’ using principles. It can be leveraged for NMI work.

6 Comments on block 2

Jeremy Malcolm April 1, 2015 at 9:12 PM

A grammar point, it should be “enabling of meaningful participation”.
Richard Hill April 2, 2015 at 5:21 PM

Regarding the Multistakeholder Principle, the NMI Statement says “Internet governance should be built on democratic,
multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.”

So I suggest that paragraph 2 be amended to read as follows after Principles: “democratic, multistakeholder, open, participative, accountable, inclusive, equitable, distributed, collaborative, and enabling meaningful participation, recognizing that the respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.”
Michael Schloh von Bennewitz April 20, 2015 at 8:50 AM

Semantically, the parenthesized word ‘Initiative’ should appear once in the first reference of ‘The NETmundial Initiative’ or in both references paragraphs 2 and 3.
kanumurisraju April 27, 2015 at 4:54 AM

Dear Sir’s

If we add these points to internet Governance principles : Open Education ,Training , Rights of IG to all youth. ‘

Why this is important : Most of developing world are uneducated or less educated but people use mobiles etc.

most of them are not aware Internet governance and open internet changes their life’s and economies from various controls of governments , Telecoms , internet service providers etc. ( internet,org and Neutrality issues qos and no internet connectivity )
Internet Business Council for Africa (IBCA) April 29, 2015 at 8:17 AM

From the above piece on the NMI TOR, The NMI initiative has been a project that has not only attracted interest but also received a different review from the internet community partly because it gained a reputation of not upholding or supporting the multistakeholder model that insists on qualities that are:- Bottom-up oriented, open, transparent, accountable or decentralized.

The NMI as currently constituted still remains as a mystery that has yet to define its real future or purpose. Therefore the community still needs to be well acquainted with the intentions, purposes and the future of the NMI Project.
NASSCOM May 4, 2015 at 2:04 PM

• NETmundial principles are also endorsed by ICANN in its latest Strategic Review document. An exercise by NMI to gather more inputs and build consensus on the ‘Principles’ and their binding definitions for larger adoption by global Internet community would be appreciable.

6 Comments on block 3

Lianna Galstyan April 2, 2015 at 6:46 AM

Should be
Initiative seeks … etc
Richard Hill April 3, 2015 at 8:12 AM

Regarding the Multistakeholder Principle, the NMI Statement says “Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.”

So I suggest that paragraph 3 be amended by adding the following at the end “, recognizing that the respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.”
kanumurisraju April 27, 2015 at 5:54 AM

All stake holders covering all missed communities
DotConnectAfrica Trust April 29, 2015 at 3:29 PM

1. The NMI has not identified the particular weaknesses in existing Internet Governance Frameworks that it aims (or intends) to repair. Even before commencing the actualization of the NMI, its facilitators should have first of all produced a comprehensive ‘Strength, Weakness, Opportunities & Threats’ (SWOT) Analysis of all existing Global Internet Governance Frameworks to see what specific weaknesses there are that the NMI is expected to help address.

Without such an inception effort, it is apparent that an arduous attempt is being exerted to create the NMI out of a ‘nebula’. Without prior strategic analysis, it is doubtful whether NMI can be designed to achieve any strategic goals in Global Internet Governance or have any effective impact in the Internet Governance Ecosystem.
China Academy of ICT May 1, 2015 at 3:42 AM

The language of this paragraph seems like the mission of “the NETmundial Initiative”, which could be combined into II. MISSION STATEMENT. Actually, this paragraph could say the“the cooperative spirit of São Paulo”, and describe the context of the NETmundial Initiative with more general language, as well as open & forward eyes. We suggest the language: “We recognize that the cooperative spirit of São Paulo is significant. With development of the Internet, the world will continually face a variety of new issues and challenges, which should be addressed by the perspective of dynamic, development, open and inclusive, as well as enhancing global multi-stakeholder cooperation.
NASSCOM May 4, 2015 at 2:05 PM

• NMI efforts to try and enable opportunities for collaboration, and act as bridge for all stakeholders, are appreciable. More details on how it will be actualized need to be enumerated especially to manage varied and at times conflicting views of the stakeholders.

NETmundial Initiative Draft Terms of Reference

Contents

Search

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Comments

Activity

Comments

Comments are closed

11 Comments on the whole page

10 Comments on block 1

6 Comments on block 2

6 Comments on block 3

Activity

Recent Comments on this Page

Recent Comments in this Document