Re: [IAB] IAB statement on the NETmundial Initiative

Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> · Fri, 05 Dec 2014 06:45:31 +0100



    Hi Phillip,

    
    On 12/4/14, 9:07 PM, Phillip
      Hallam-Baker wrote:

    
      Just to be clear, what I am unclear about is the
        Netmundial Initiative and in particular the role of this
        proposed council.
    
    
    First, it seems that the Netmundial Initiative (NMI) is evolving. 
    We on the IAB don't have more information than what's on their web
    and their public statements, but here is what I gather.

    
    At its core, at least at the moment, it is an online platform for
    discussion of issues relating to Internet governance.  One of the
    first tasks they have set themselves is to map the space, in terms
    of who is doing what where (what they call enablers).  The other is
    to provide best practices for local Internet governance.  There are
    many aspects of governance that help the Interne succeed, and CGI.br
    who are one of the sponsors want to share their views and hear from
    others on that point.  The World Economic Forum (WEF) believes there
    is value in expanding the discussion beyond the tech sector, and
    they believe they can facilitate that aspect.  Fostering dialog
    about these sorts of issues is a good thing, because it leads to
    improved understanding by the participants.

    
    So why the need for a council?  Well, obviously we the IAB don't
    believe there is such a need.  It's quite heavy weight for an online
    platform, but I believe at least one of the reasons they did it was
    to show high level support for the activity.  Some
    lightweight approaches to managing conversations that are driven by
    the community will probably be needed to address what I call an
    impedance mismatch between the different styles of communication
    that people from different communities are used to, and to
    understand what the conclusion of a conversation is.  We even have
    mechanisms like that for the IETF.  Determining rough consensus is
    the primary one.  Thomas Narten's weekly Post'Ometer is another. 
    Our sergeant-at-arms mechanism is yet a third.  Our experience shows
    all of those mechanisms are best driven by the community/customers
    of the service.

    
    A few of us will monitor where this goes, if anywhere.  There have
    been a number of attempts already at this sort of activity.  Some
    like the Internet Governance Forum enjoy some success.  Others have
    fallen flat.  To early to say about this one, really.  I think one
    key aspect will be that the activity has to cover ground that the
    other activities not only aren't covering, but can't easily expand
    to cover.

    
    Anyway, hope this helps.

    
    Eliot

    
        On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Phillip
          Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          wrote:

          I am a
            little confused by this proposal.

            
            The statement of principles seems relatively
            unobjectionable. But

            there seems to be rather less information on specific
            objectives and

            virtually none on how those objectives would be achieved.

            
            There is a proposal for a council but no information on how
            the

            members are to be appointed or what the source or scope of
            their

            authority will be.

            
            There are three questions of power: How did you get it?
            Whose

            interests do you serve when you use it? and How do we get
            rid of you?

            I don't see answers to any of those questions in the
            documents

            provided.

          
Attachment:
signature.asc

Description: OpenPGP digital signature