<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Agree with all this Matthew. We did not do too
badly.<br>
<br>
And I think we also learnt that there are some issues which we
need to learn about more, and around which we need to develop more
comprehensive positions, e.g. intellectual property, and other
pre-conditions which are vital to free expression and association
such as the right to encryption and to anonymous speech and not
making intermediaries liable for user behaviours.<br>
<br>
Even if these were not spelled out in the NetM document, we need
to develop strategies to secure these.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/05/2014 16:04, Matthew Shears
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5362547C.9040306@cdt.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Just to move beyond the "who did what and why" during the somewhat
chaotic last moments of NETmundial and focus on what we learned,
here are a couple of thoughts:<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>The pre-day worked very well and we should take those
structured approaches more often - there was a real sense of
working together and accomplishment</li>
<li>We played a central and constructive role because we
contributed fully to the entire process, from the
consultations contributing as either platforms or as
individual organizations, through the event itself - that
consistent engagement is critical in my mind to our success
and is a learning for other fora that we engage in</li>
<li>If there was a moment when our engagement broke down a
little it was when the text went into the smaller drafting
groups - we should have been more available and organized
around those committees when they needed wording or assistance<br>
</li>
<li>We identified speakers who spoke to issues of concern for
which we largely had a common view - an achievement and
something we should consider in the future</li>
<li>We had text for many of the key issues - which was critical
- but as others have noted, the specificity that was needed by
the committees was sometimes lacking - a lesson for next time</li>
<li>The multi-stakeholder approach was largely practiced
throughout, with the exception of the last moments where the
primacy of governments became apparent. Whether this was a
reality of this particular process or not, it reminds us of
the importance of reaching out to all stakeholders to
understand where their thinking is on critical issues. We
should continue to push our positions of course but we also
need to know where other stand on the same. We may never see
eye to eye with other stakeholders on some/many issues but it
is good to understand where they are so we are not as
surprised as we were by the NETmundial end game in the future.</li>
<li>We may not get all that we want, but we can get a lot - as
we did in Sao Paulo. And this is in part testament to the
points above and how well civil society engaged and
cooperated. <br>
</li>
</ul>
My 2 centavos<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/1/2014 9:18 AM, Adam Peake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:A2A60D74-D2A4-480E-853C-5981BC1E8E28@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And...
On May 1, 2014, at 9:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Niels,
On 05/01/2014 08:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Carlos,
On 04/30/2014 03:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not
included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand
English, this is the paragraph on it:
"UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a
globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and
accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique
identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely
end-to-end regardless of the lawful content."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This definition allows for charging differentially by user, content,
site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of
communication.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">It is not a definition -- nobody had said that so far. The recommendation for a principle provides the basis without which your dreams (which are also ours, or at least mine) would not come true. Do you think we would be able to delve into such details in an attempt to build a pluralist consensus document? And this is why we mentioned in the Roadmap the issue is complex and merits further dialogue and recommendations.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
We kept asking for specific text. Something the we could work with in drafting. Asked on this list and others, asked at the CS meeting on 22nd. I think I even suggested:
"Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral and open platform, free from discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship."
Not great, but something to argue for. (and it might have been a lever to keep the other creator text out of the document?)
We looked through the transcripts and all I remember seeing is general statements (we want to see NN mentioned, blah... and those were balanced by others who said there was no place for net neutrality in the documents). Sorry if I missed anything, but we needed text to work with, and needed support. Where we got help, it worked: thanks particularly to Robin, Stephanie, Avri.
Anyway. A very enjoyable and rewarding process. There are a lot of positives in the documents.
I'm very grateful to CS for asking me to join the EMC. Thank you,
Adam
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In the Marco Civil, we also recognize the issue is not exhausted, this is why we agreed to insert the possibility of further regulation under the guidance of CGI.br and Anatel. This in itself was a major victory, as the transnational telcos (mostly European) who control the network market in Brazil did not want even the mention of CGI.br anywhere in the document.
Sometimes I think some progressive civil society groups have slipped towards Aristotelian logic -- either we get all or nothing -- forgetting all about political tactics. Unfortunate.
BTW, I would really like to see the list of orgs who signed (or agreed to) the statement. I find it hard to believe that 50-60 orgs were so naïve in grasping the relevance of the moment and the nature of the final document after participating in the event (I assume they all participated?).
And I thank again Stephanie Perrin for understanding that relevance and nature.
fraternal regards
--c.a.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So I am not sure it would fall under my definition of network neutrality.
Best,
Niels
Niels ten Oever
Acting Head of Digital
Article 19
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.article19.org">www.article19.org</a>
PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>
+ 44 771 247 2987</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>