<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
<br>
As a person who stood up and applauded for some parts and not the
others because my perception and understanding of the process was
very different, I find Jeanette's explanation extremely helpful. I
was tweeting about how impressed I was with her, Adam and Anriette
but was extremely disappointed with what I thought was developing.
This also educates me and makes me wonder if we were in the same
meeting.<br>
<br>
I can imagine Adam and Anriette's predicament with no specific
language to work with. I witnessed it in the drafting room
sometimes and was left frustrated myself, having no way of
contributing and gawking at business reps and their team which
had different waves of alternative language to propose. I was only
an observer and did not have the responsibility as Adam and
Anriette had. This speaks to our lack of coordination on crucial
issues, for example Net Neutrality and Intellectual Property
Rights language.<br>
<br>
Mathew is correct in highlighting the positive parts of our
approach but I think having designated teams with people who have
expertise in specific areas, can come up with actual words to
reflect our concerns while thinking on their feet is crucial. If
we can divide effort and coordinate our statements better, it will
be a huge learning for the next such opportunity.<br>
<br>
On 05/01/2014 10:04 AM, 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>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org">www.softwarefreedom.org</a>
Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126
(fax) +91-11-24323530
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.sflc.in">www.sflc.in</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>