By Monika Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch
After a report by The Register’s Kieren McCarthy on a postponement of the inaugural meeting of the NetMundial Initiative (NMI) Council discussions were revived over the need for the new body in several mailing lists.
The NMI (www.netmundial.org) was originally proposed by the World Economic Forum and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a follow-up mechanism to produce more practical policies following the NetMundial Conference and was later joined by the original NetMundial Conference host, Brazil.
NMI got off to a bad start first when the World Economic Forum supported by ICANN settled on the name of the successful NetMundial Conference last spring. It was again rejected by the technical community after it secured support from NetMundial organiser Brazil in December.
There is at this point no final decision on the delay for the inauguration, said now NMI ambassador Wolfgang Kleinwaechter. “The proposal to do so just results from our perception that we need more time for public discussion of the mission statement and the terms of reference,” Kleinwaechter wrote in a first reaction.
He also defended the hesitation to push the initiative ahead instead of taking the time for more consultation. So far the consultation has drawn only about 40 comments, many questioning the need for the body altogether.
Addressing these questions, Kleinwaechter argued that there are gaps in the internet governance landscape, and, he said, “I see a risk, that once we get to the WSIS 10+ a number of old proposals for an intergovernmental Internet Council might be put on the table again.” WSIS refers to the 2003-2005 World Summit on the Information Society.
The results might be nasty debates going forward in 2016. For the tireless internet governance advocate a good starting point for the NMI Council would be the eve of the next Internet Governance Forum, the very body that was seen by some as potentially being put aside by NMI.