[ccwg-internet-governance] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Tue Jan 28 10:03:03 UTC 2014


On Jan 28, 2014, at 5:12 PM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I thought I’d pass along for info a helpful message to another list from NCUC member Marilia Maciel, who is one of the two civil society reps on the Net Mundial EMC.
> 


And my additional comments on the call.  Marilia covered most.  

BTW, Transamerica Hotel was the venue of the 2006 Sao Paulo ICANN meeting.  Those who attended may remember it was away from most other hotels, so busing in and out wouldn't be ideal, would make late evening use difficult etc.  Let's hope the Hyatt comes through.  Sounds like Hartmut and his team are doing a great job.  Short notice for a meeting of this size.

Adam


> Thanks Marilia, great notes.  Not much to add.
> 
> On the two topics:
> 
> "internet governance principles"
> 
> Agreement that a great deal of works has been done on principles, not that we now need more actual principles, but an attempt to develop a set of universal principles, to distill what we have.  Some ideas about how to do this, but no clear agreement.
> 
> "roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem"
> 
> Issue less developed and less understood.  What the particular sub-topics might be not as clear.  Expecting input from the ICANN panel looking at the topic and the high-level panel.  We mentioned that while the panels' input would be helpful, we did not want to defer to the work of those panels, they weren't the default content. I think now would be a good time to introduce the bestbits work on this. 
> 
> Question: how do we get from here, to some outcome on April 24? Or should we expect work to continue beyond Sao Paulo? (this is my preference.)
> 
> BTW, I suspect the new website <http://netmundial.br/> pages on content were intended as placeholders and not meant to go live.  Checking this.  Suggest everyone ignore for now.
> 
> Date for contributions:  I also had as March 1, but I found some of the conversations hard to follow (choppy and poorly mic'd room.)
> 
> About the Transamerica Hotel:  the conference facilities are available, but all rooms booked, so would mean many buses in an out from other hotels.  Since making first inquires about hotels the Hyatt's become available, and as Marilia mentions has rooms and is also close to many other hotels, of different classes/cost.  Local leads looking at the Hyatt as we were having our meeting.
> 
> Seeing the meeting schedule reinforces how little time there will be.  Which affects outcomes.  Organizers are looking for flexibility in use of the venue later into the evening, and the Hyatt makes this possible.  Looking at the possibility of an evening session on April 23 (7 to 9:30) for perhaps stakeholder meetings, perhaps regional.  And if the venue can remain open late (or not close if you'd like to draft all night).  Got the impression the logistics side working hard on arrangements, they are pretty experienced in holding meetings of similar type, and trying to be imaginative/helpful in arrangements. 
> 
> Adam
> 
> 




> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
>> Subject: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial
>> Date: January 28, 2014 at 3:29:11 AM GMT+1
>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, cone-elist at net-equality.org
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>>  
>> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them.
>> 
>>  
>> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved.
>> 
>>  
>> Regarding the substantive agenda:
>> 
>>  
>> 1. Work Plan of EMC
>> 
>> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available.
>> 
>> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website
>> 
>> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary
>> 
>> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls
>> 
>>  
>> 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)
>> 
>> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda
>> 
>> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website.
>> 
>>  
>> 3. Participation criteria
>> 
>> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility
>> 
>> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups.
>> 
>> - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme.
>> 
>> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend.
>> 
>> - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders.
>> 
>> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group.
>> 
>> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). 
>> 
>> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants.
>> 
>>  
>> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded:
>> 
>>  
>> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes.
>> 
>> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic.
>> 
>> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually.
>> 
>>  
>> 4) Public consultation
>> 
>> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something
>> 
>>  
>> - Inputs will be provided through the website
>> 
>> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined)
>> 
>> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC.
>> 
>> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website)
>> 
>> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website
>> 
>> - All contributions will be treated equally
>> 
>> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?)
>> 
>> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?)
>> 
>> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda
>> 
>> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today.
>> 
>>  
>> Day 1:
>> 
>> 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony
>> 
>> 11:30-13:00 – Principles
>> 
>> 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks
>> 
>> 16:30-18:00 – principles
>> 
>>  
>> Day 2:
>> 
>> 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks
>> 
>> 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles
>> 
>> 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd)
>> 
>> 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes
>> 
>>  
>> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve.
>> 
>>  
>> 6. Wrap-up, Next steps
>> 
>> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify.
>> 
>>  
>> Venue:
>> 
>> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon.
>> 
>> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment.
>> 
>> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar.
>> 
>>  
>> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved.
>> 
>>  
>> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful.
>> 
>> Marília
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Marília Maciel
>> Pesquisadora Gestora
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>> 
>> Researcher and Coordinator
>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>> 
>> DiploFoundation associate
>> www.diplomacy.edu
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ccwg-internet-governance mailing list
> ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance



More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list