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
The Initiative is somehow clear in its objectives and main issues. At least in a narrow interpretation of it: a platform that acts as a market place for connecting participants on Internet related issues. However, what is not clear neither in the Terms of Reference nor in the Website is the institutional arrangement of the Initiative, particularly on its financial support, and the localization of decision-making power regarding the Initiative.
Regarding the decision making power. Yes, there is a Council. But I couldn’t find an explanation about its role in the initiative. Is it an advisory council that merely provides feedback? Is it a decisive council that makes actual decisions regarding the initiative? In any case, who would implement those decisions? Who would oversee the progresses, achievements, and failures? Is this an initial, a permanent, or transitory Council? The website and the term of reference would gain a lot on transparency if dealing with that kind of questions.
Regarding the financial sustainability of this Initiative. It’s clear that the Initiative would require support through the time. Who would be supporting this? Who has supported it so far? How has and will you manage to prevent that financial support undermines independence on decision making? Again, the more transparent the better. I know that, because of the stage of development of the Initiative you have discussed and made decisions regarding to this and other points, but it would be great providing to users such information. I just couldn’t find it neither in the Terms of Reference nor in the Website.
Looking forward to the development of the Initiative.
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.
It needs to be made clear what “operational solutions” are and how are they different from policy-setting, as it is NMI’s intention not to be involved in policy setting.
“integral” should be removed. NMI can be “part of” the IG ecosystem, but it is presumptuous to assume it is integral.
It is not entirely clear what “true multistakeholder communities” are. The term should be removed. Capacity building should empower under-represented stakeholders to engage in their respective contexts, local and global.
Facilitating financing should be clearly defined as not to imply policy-setting activities by NMI.
How, in concrete terms, will the Initative help complement the work of the IGF? It seems that many activities rather duplicate the activities of the IGF.
How will NMI seek to address gaps in policy development while not setting policy? We propose that “address be changed to “identify”.
NMI should be more clear and definitive about which “communities” it aims to serve.
We propose that the word “balanced” be removed.
The ambition to be a “neutral” clearinghouse and connection point for Internet Governance is enormous, and relies heavily on trust. Do the various stakeholders of Internet Governance trust the NMI to act as a major connector and collector of information? How can neutrality be ensured while still assisting underserved stakeholders, and making sure that the same voices and priorities wouldn’t dominate?
Furthermore, what accountability measures are in place? And are there any measures put to for reviewing the TOR, or is it in place indefinitely?
We feel that the mission statement does not articulate enough on what makes NMI different from other IG spaces. This should be elaborated in this section in a convincing manner.
Furthermore, it should point to expanding the conversation to include stakeholders that have been absent from the discussion, and build support for a stronger Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that can fully achieve its mission of enabling communication, debate and collaborative policy making.
It should not seek to hold any decision-making role, but rather should support a strong IGF and democratic and bottom-up processes, serving as a space to increase dialogue, coordination and collaboration within the internet governance ecosystem and between all the interested parties. APC also believes that NMI should not draw resources away from the IGF, but rather work with and parallel to it, with an overall goal of strengthening it.
NMI should also strengthen the development and social justice orientation of the NETmundial roapmap and implementation in order to make the NETmundial statement more relevant for developing countries.
The Global Internet Community is that part of the Global Community that concerns itself with the Internet. As soon as a member of the Global Community who has not heretofore been concerned with the Internet starts to concern herself with the Internet, she becomes a member of the Global Internet Community.
Really nothing mysterious about it at all.
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.
The Initiative is inspired by the Statement, which identified a need for the global Internet community to further develop the Internet governance ecosystem to take stock of current and future Internet related issues.and find appropriate solutions. These solutions can be either operational, legal, sociological, technical or multi-dimensional
The Initiative also commits to provide the mechanisms for multi-stakeholder participation and pay particular attention to facilitate capacity building and financing as key requirements to ensure that diverse stakeholders have an opportunity for more than nominal participation, but in fact gain the know-how and the resources for effective participation. Capacity building is important to support the emergence of true multistakeholder communities, especially in those regions where the participation of some stakeholder groups needs to be further strengthened.
Provide the necessary mechanisms for active participation from all stakeholder groups especially from less privileged ones. The use of the hubs is an example to allow diverse participation
The mission of the Initiative is to provide a platform that helps catalyze practical cooperation between all stakeholders in order to address Internet related issues including Internet Governance and advance the implementation of the NETmundial Principles (“Principles”).
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.
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.
10. III (Rationale & Commitment Principles) – NMI is conceived as an operational solution for current and future Internet issues. Leaving aside future issues, what are the current Internet issues that the NMI is framed to solve? This is quite unclear, and assumes that current issues are not being addressed by existing Internet Governance processes and dialogue mechanisms. Moreover, without any policy-setting mandate, this follows that the NMI would also not have any decision-making authority, and as such, it would not be able to provide required solutions. Without clarity in terms of its commitments; coupled with lack of any substantive objectives and specific mission, the NMI would have no operational effectiveness since such commitments cannot be translated into actionable programs.
3. It has been mentioned that the NMI will help address gaps in policy development; meanwhile, it will not be involved in policy setting. If NMI is not involved in setting policy, how would it be able to address gaps in policy development? Would this be on the basis of playing a direct role in policy review and evaluation – by simply identifying such gaps? This remains quite nebulous – and again, lacks clarity.
4. NMI Scope of Activities lack precision and differentiation. As an IG ‘Clearinghouse’ NMI seems geared towards Internet Governance Advocacy, Cooperation, Collaboration, Engagement and Facilitation – all based on consensus. How much influence in terms of weight and overall substantiality would it have?
5. The imperative for the Global Internet Community to further develop the Internet Governance Ecosystem “to produce operational solutions” – implies that NMI will have a program management/implementation role for current and future Internet issues; but implementing what exactly? Again, without any indisputable mandate, its prospective implementation role cannot be envisioned.
6. That NMI will facilitate capacity building and financing but leaves out where such financing will be mobilized from; and from where such resources will be harnessed for capacity building.
7. It remains to be understood how the NMI can adequately address the needs and involvement of under-represented areas such as Africa. Regional IGFs are better frameworks for articulating regional views on Global Internet Governance. The NMI could actually cause the marginalization of Regional Internet Governance initiatives.
8. The sort of complementarity that is envisioned between the NMI and existing IG initiatives has not been explained. The NMI has not clearly explained how it would be different from the IGF. For this reason, the NMI could actually cause the duplication of functions that are already under the purview of the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF that came out of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) is a multi-stakeholder platform but lacks any decision making authority. If the IGF has any reported short-comings, perhaps, efforts should be made to make the IGF work better. If the NMI will not be involved in policy-setting, then it would suffer the same fate as the IGF. Therefore, the conveners/participants of the NMI should integrate their efforts with a view to strengthening the IGF.
9. There is no provision that has been stated within the NMI Scope of Activities (IV) that cannot be done by existing Internet Governance dialogue frameworks. There is nothing in the NMI Principles that are not also conveyed in the IGF.
2. II (Mission Statement) focuses on advancing the implementation of the NETMundial Principles. However, the exact role of NMI has not been clearly defined, and articulated, and as explained in (1) above, could result in a premeditated failure due to lack of proper strategic foundation. A Strategic Global Internet Governance Policy Review should have been done to know whether NMI is actually needed. What strategic role will NMI play – or what strategic purpose would the NMI fulfill are important questions that have not yet been contemplated; and answers are grossly lacking.
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.
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.
I am surprised the word “integral” is here, I thought it had been removed during the preparation of this draft.
In any case I think a more modest description would be appropriate, and suggest this just read “as a part of”
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.
The NMI TOR attempts to define the scope of its activities, we would like to further know from the initiative if it replaces and complements the current initiatives such as the Annual Internet Governance Forum .
The internet as it has grown has been largely evolutionary rather than revolutionary, therefore it is important to now from the scope the intents of the initiative if it will join other existing and experienced initiative in a complementary manner.
•The Internet governance landscape must remain inclusive and accessible to all.
•Any decisions or debates that are made concerning the way forward on the management of the internet resource should be made for and with the interests of the user in mind.
•All voices should be heard in an equivocal way without bias of region of origin, language or level of development. No idea and or proposal made in isolation more exclusion can with the public confidence that is needed to make a global resource such as the internet thrive.
•Accountability must remain to be the most guarded facet of the Internet governance irrespective of anybody that leads the discussions
•No particular body or group may sufficiently regard itself as the supreme or defector policy maker or driver, therefore DotConnectAfrica agrees with ISOC that “With respect to the need for new groups, such as the NETmundial Initiative and its Coordination Council, the Internet Society Board reiterates that the Internet Society’s longstanding position is that there is no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues that may arise. At its heart, the Internet is a decentralized, loosely coupled; distributed system that allows policies to be defined by those who require them for their operations and that ensures that issues can be resolved at a level closest to their origin.”
•All controversies that may be linked to the NMI project should be properly explained and cleared in order to gain the public confidence.
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
A grammar point, it should be “enabling of meaningful participation”.
1. Why “technical Internet community” rather than “Internet technical community” as per normal?
2. I understand the reason for including “In addition, the Initiative will not be a policy-setting body,” but I find it unhelpful. After all, these terms of reference are themselves a set of policies. There may also be supported initiatives (like the deliberative poll proposal) that can also be characterised as setting policies. We should also not close off the opportunity of developing revisions to the NETmundial multi-stakeholder statement through a similar process in the future. Therefore I suggest either deleting this or changing it to “In addition, the Initiative will not make any legally authoritative decisions”.
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.
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 is global resource and open people net work echo system.
All stake holders covering all missed communities
capacity building , education involvement and results is Important.
LIBERATED INTERNET GOVERNANCE ECHO SYSTEM to produce operational solutions and USAGE solutions .
Every internet user must have open internet governance, neutrality and right to use according to his needs. This is important some countries internet providers are squeezing users and also govts regulators are working based on monopolistic companies and Governments who want to crush open internet movements.
liberty of using internet as integral part of internet governance.
as well as internet technical community , internet users community , internet requirement community.
clearing houses for education , training , Development
establish collaborative relationships by establishing global NMI Knowledge Excellency enters all over the world.
at Local, district levels covering all grass root people.
usage and reward reporting efforts. Even if we give one certificate or selfie or give scholar ship or training fees for youth , volunteers of the world it will give real impact.
create NMI club or member ship models or create Chapters at district level or make universities to become centers for NMI and to fill policy gaps. LIBERATED INTERNET OR NMI is important.
implement and use best proven models world wide on country based models.
For example we can have one global web site with country wise , state wide models. If one model is giving results there is no need duplication and ready to start fresh project. As Goals and Destination is same we can have different vehicles with same fuel to reach destination with different drivers , commuters and stage players . Local knowledge + global Knowledge partner ships for long internet family bonding .
all stake holders covering all villages, societies, communities,uneducated ,youth, echo system on planet earth.
Internet governance /principles must play major role for future world sustainability and growth.
Echo system plants trees , rivers , animals , pollution, Population , air , no wars etc are also important to get connected for better world.
Internet with out internet echo system with IOT , WEB cloud , big data security etc will make net disconnected with people and echo system around them.
Nepal earth quake is one case study for us.
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
I agree with Richard Hill. I still don’t know how NMI would not duplicate efforts or take care of issues that are not already being addressed in other spaces
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
Initiative seeks … etc
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.
As regards “the Initiative will seek to complement and support the work of existing Internet governance dialogue and normative processes and institutions”, we appreciate this part. Especially in the present global Internet governance system it lacks a platform or mechanism which particularly attaches close importance to and systemically solves the problems of developing countries, to this extent, NMI shall play positive role in this area, filling in the gaps to promote the balanced and sustainable development of global Internet governance ecosystem.
The efforts that NMI has made on developing and evolving global internet governance ecosystem, especially the recent progresses of producing and polishing the ToR deserve credit and recognition. Moreover, with respect to clarifying the orientation and functions, NMI in deed has made further progress. All the above shall be encouraged and next close step is that NMI shall put its commitments into practice as soon as possible. Of course it needs more contribution from the global community, helping the practical actions transparent, multi-beneficial effective and sustainable.
Comparing to stagnating in an endless circle of paper debates, the top priority of NMI’s mission is to put the proposed ideas into practice, including performing the specific scopes and activities listed in ToR and make meaningful interaction with other IG-related organizations/forums/activities. Meanwhile, during the above process, NMI shall re-clarify its objectives and re-improve its roles in IG ecosystem.
Semantically, the parenthesized word ‘Initiative’ should appear once in the first reference of ‘The NETmundial Initiative’ or in both references paragraphs 2 and 3.
Peter’s comment about being “a part of” makes sense to me. The Inititaive may indeed become an integral part of Internet Governance, but setting this up as a condition for action probably doesn’t help.
Can you say more about how the Initiative would be neutral in practice, while adding value? It’s complicated to exercise editorial control and be neutral.
Providing a platform as described in this section would be a valuable contribution.
There are a couple of possible interpretations of the the “promoting” function. One is that is in an “Evangelism” role on behalf of the Principles, which is helpful. If the “promoting” activities become evaluation by the Initiative, then the Initiative becomes on the verge of becoming a policy organization.
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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• As highlighted in NETmundial outcome document, the multistakeholder definition says that “for operating on the issues and development, 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.”
Block 2 statement could be appropriately amended to include the points highlighted in definition, especially regarding determining roles and responsibilities of stakeholders.
• NMI’s plan to complement and support work of all existing work in IG underway is appreciable, with so much happening simultaneously that it becomes difficult to track and keep one updated with all developments. Does NMI intend to try and act as a coordinator between all existing platforms? Also will it try and put in processes in place to identify duplication of work, and consolidation of work currently undergoing at other platforms?
• Will IGF activities at National and Regional level be supported as well?
• Till date, no concrete exercise has been undertaken to completely identify and segregate all the technical and policy work in IG space. Any activity undertaken by NMI in this respect would be highly appreciable.
• Role that NMI envisages as a neutral clearinghouse is not very clear from the above statement, especially with NMI not working on policy setting in IG space. More clarity on clearing house function processes and its relation with feeding that work into other institutions is sought
• Will NMI platform for diverse actors also act as platform for inter-governmental (eg: bilterals, treaties etc.) or industry-industry (B2B) engagements on IG matters?
• More clarity on scope of activities is desired to understand whether wider issues such as privacy, cybersecurity, cybercrime, cyber laws, international treaties and laws etc. will also be included in addition to critical internet resource allocation, DNS Security, etc.
• Advancing multistakeholder model for more inclusion, especially from the developing world, would lead to active representation of community interests and better awareness levels. It will be worth highlighting if such activities will be limited to regional IGF or include other platforms as well.
• NMI efforts to address exiting gaps in policy development in IG space are desired and welcome. More details on the process and nature of engagement with other institutions on these lines is sought, especially with NMI denying active participation in policy setting as highlighted in block 1 of ‘Scope of Activities’.
• NMI objective of establishing a new platform to catalyze practical cooperation between all stakeholders on IG matters could yield fructifying results if successfully implemented as other platforms have not been able to actualize it in practice. In that respect, NMI can carry an exercise to identify all practical challenges and propose solutions to overcome those challenges in IG.
• It would be in interest of global Internet community if NMI undertakes an exercise to revisit NETmundial Principles for a wider consultation and debate by the global community, for possible expansion and amendments, before active endorsement. After it gathers global consensus, advancing implementation of NETmundial Principles including its advocacy for adoption by other IG bodies, federal governments and other stakeholders can follow.
How will we know if instead of complementing and supporting the IGF, the NMI would not just duplicate efforts? Will there be a watchdog committee to denounce infringements? Is there someone keeping count of the issues presented and debated at the IGF?
What are balanced communities?
In the Conference in Costa Rica the other day, Fadi said it would be wiser to concentrate on Data integrity rather than Data Security, as behaviors will be crucial to mitigate cyber-attacks such as phishing attacks, MIM, malware, Trojan and worms. This would require formulating BP for users, raising awareness in the global Internet community. Is there an organization doing this already?
If we focus on the behavior of States, then we will encroach on conferences such as the GCCS, or the UN which seam better fora to deal with such issues.
“IGF at global, regional and national levels”. Itis not clear. The global IGF being composed of regional, (sub-regoional in some cases) and national IG processes. It is important to go beyond the UN global forum
If/when the Initiative moves forward, it needs to include some research angle. I dont see it here. How do we know that we are making impact? How do we measure success? Where is impact being made? What are we impacting? Who is benefiting? The recent exercise by the IGF to measure its own impact could have been helped by such.
I would like to endorse this comment!
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.
Leave a comment on paragraph 15 The mission of the Initiative is to provide “ON-GOING ON-LINE AND OFF-LINE” platform that helps catalyze practical cooperation between all stakeholders in order to address Internet issues and advance the implementation of the NETmundial Principles (“Principles”) “AND TO INCORPORATE EXISTING AND FUTURE INITIATIVES ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE BOTH ON HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL HIERARCHY”
Typically, active participation take place as a result of understanding or knowing what Internet Governance is. Capacity building at all levels is key to enthusiastic and voluntary participation. Coming from a region where the term “internet governance” is still foreign, this commitment is fully supported.
Governments are usually the decision makers however their decisions does not necessarily reflect the views of all stakeholders. Therefore, it is important that within the Internet Governance space, all stakeholders build their decisions from an equal footing. As such, if this activity is understood to address consensus decision-making, then it is fully supported.
Agree also with Walid Al-Saqaf about the text.
while listing what NMI will do, it would be helpful to list what it won’t do as activities. the goal to complement IGF is laudable but probably not enough clear.
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.”
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.”
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.
The Netmundial Statement “recognized that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the public interest.” Consequently, it should be the global community which develops governance solutions, not the “global Internet community”, whatever that is.
The Netmundial 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.”
Consequently, paragraph 3 should read: “In particular, the Initiative commits to operate in a democratic, multistakeholder, open, transparent and inclusive manner, as part of the Internet governance system. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders will be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.”
I am still not convinced that there is any need or scope for such work.
I am still not convinced that there is any need or scope for such a new platform.
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.
Add three paragraphs:
Promote an Internet governance ecosystem oriented to avoid / mitigate the occurrence of cyber aggressions like Cyber War (attacks among state nation), Cyber Espionage, Cyber Terrorism, Cyber Crime and Hacker Activism.
Promote and support the creation of concrete and specific mechanisms to avoid / mitigate the occurrence of cyber aggressions like Cyber War (attacks among state nation), Cyber Espionage, Cyber Terrorism, Cyber Crime and Hacker Activism.
Transmit worldwide the conviction that, current technological state-of-the-art, could allow for an Internet where freedom, privacy and security can exist together in a context where human rights are the main reference point.
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.
There are two quit different NMI roles proposed here. The second, being a match making site for project partners and collaborative relationships, is straight forward but a challenge and not an assured success.
The first, the role of a neutral clearinghouse, is less straightforward. Neutral likely means not favoring the interests of one stakeholder group over another in the assembly of issues, solutions, expertise and resources. However, that list is very heterogeneous and clearinghouse activities either depend on evaluation by others to verify that what is collected meets some quality and relevance criteria, or the clearinghouse performs that task itself. Just trying to be a clearinghouse for expertise, solutions and resources is a daunting task, and may not be the best way, or even a viable way, to proceed. What being a clearinghouse for issues means is also very unclear.
Items 3, 4, 5, & 6 under Scope of Activities (page 4) which list “enable”, “facilitate”, “promote”, and “assist” are more an elaboration of the Mission Statement (page 2) than a list of either the What or the How of MNI activities.
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?
How can the initiative do these things without authority (a demand from citizens and or governments for such a body). I am not opposed to it per se, but the WEF is in no way representative of civil society, academia, etc… So a partnership created by ICANN and WEF to achieve these goals is puzzling and raises some questions, which could be answered in an accountable manner, yet it has not been done here.
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.
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.
I would encourage the mention of ‘sharing experiences and resources’ between developing and developed countries. As a platform, NETmundial could in fact be very useful in serving as a bridge in that respect.
May 4, 2015 at 3:17 PM
See in context
May 4, 2015 at 2:09 PM
May 4, 2015 at 2:08 PM
May 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM
May 4, 2015 at 2:05 PM
May 4, 2015 at 2:04 PM