<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Dear all<br>
<br>
Some responses to Jeanette below.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/05/2014 12:52, Jeanette Hofmann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53622767.3080206@wzb.eu" type="cite">Hi Ian,
<br>
<br>
the only cs people I could see against the light directed towards
the stage during the closing ceremony where those who didn't get
up when most most people in the room had risen and applauded
process and/or outcome.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think many CS people were quite confused about what was going on.
Some did stand up, others were anxious about the statement to be
read. I was not part of the group that developed the statement, but
I did chat with Niels and Stephanie for a bit. When I walked back
from the drafting many people approached me to say they hear civil
society is planning a walkout. That would have been a mista <br>
<br>
Civil society gained much of its demands, but we did also lose
ground on some points. While I did not agree fully with the
statement or endorse it online, I don't think we should regret it.
A more nuanced response, that also included positive comments, and
ideally more intense but targeted critique, and that was based on a
thorough reading of the outcome document would have been better..
but there was not much time. <br>
<br>
All in all, I think expressing criticism was better than simply
going along with the general rapture. Yes, we could have been
smarter in how we did it, but we did make it clear we had concerns,
and that is important.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:53622767.3080206@wzb.eu" type="cite">Less than
30 minutes before the closing ceremony, both statement and process
where about to collapse due to a few governments who weren't
willing to support the principle section of the outcome document.
These governments hadn't been part of the editing process and
probably hadn't monitored it either. They looked at the changes
being made to the draft document some hours before and simply said
no to some of what they saw on the screen, or wanted text included
that they didn't see on that screen. In this situation it occurred
to me how very risky the process was that we had sketched out
earlier that week. Board and committees simply hoped that the
outcome would be legitimate and acceptable to the majority of
attendees.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Jeanette, some governments had been part of the editing process -
directly and indirectly, and had monitored it very closely. As a
drafting group we negotiated and struggled through a difficult
process, and we knew that some of the text included did challenge
what some government stakeholders wanted. We - Markus and myself as
co-chairs - chose to err on the side of what seemed to be the "mood
of the room" on some of these issues. Possibly this was a mistake,
and we could have compromised more. I personally might have erred in
defending some text - submissions on intermediary liability and
surveillance - too vigorously. But I felt that avoiding
controversy, when there were issues such as mass surveillance which
very many people had very strong feelings about, would not do
justice to the process.<br>
<br>
I think if we had more time, we could have made use of careful
wordsmithing in ways that would have overcome some of the
disagreement. We did manage to get consensus, more or less,
treatment of network neutrality with the Brazilian government
representatives graciously agreeing to descriptive text in the
principles section of the document and use of the term network
neutrality in the roadmap section of the document.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:53622767.3080206@wzb.eu" type="cite">
<br>
While more and more government reps expressed their discont and
the meeting was running over time, I tried to imagine what a
failure of netmundial would mean for the future evolution of the
multistakeholder process. For years to come, I thought, we would
be stuck with the IG truism that one can have either
multistakeholder and chairman reports or more specific outcomes
BUT NOT BOTH. We would have faced an agonizing stalemate for a
long time despite all the goodwill and efforts to push this
fragile baby forward. If we had ended with yet another chairman's
report, netmundial would have be interpreted by many as a
confirmation of the limits of multistakeholder processes.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Markus and I left the room and as co chairs working with the scribe
we made the changes that were demanded. We did our best to not lose
all of the spirit of the original text. <br>
<br>
While I also felt strongly that getting agreed text was important
and that a chairman's report would have been a HUGE HUGE
disappointment, I also see this differently. In several ways:<br>
<br>
1) Why do we not see the fact that the many governments who did not
speak up but who did not support the document as failure? Is
support from those at the Executive High Level Committee enough to
give this document the status it needs for us to use it going
forward? What about the many other governments that did not support
the text, even if they did not speak up?<br>
<br>
2) Does this mean that MS processes must always end in consensus? I
question that. Yes, I agree, this process needed to reach agreement
on principles. We need this going forward with democratising
governance and making sure that the internet is preserved as a
common resource. But surely we will never always agree? <br>
<br>
In other words, we need to create space in our MS processes for how
to deal with disagreement. And if this disagreement is always going
to be resolved by civil society having to be the group that makes
the concessions, we need to think very carefully of what we are
gaining, and consider how these processes will retain their
credibility.<br>
<br>
I respect the views of those governments and other stakeholders who
had difficulty with aspects of the text. What I would have liked
would have been more debate and discussion, and, with more time
(which I know we did not have) spent on reaching agreement, and if
that still failed, some recognition of the differences in views and
the reasons for them. In this sense a fuller report of the event
would be very valuable.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:53622767.3080206@wzb.eu" type="cite">
<br>
I was so relieved when we achieved a compromise and prevented the
process from failing! And this is why I found it pretty hard to
listen to the cs statement and watch you all sitting their with
your arms folded and not even a little smile on your faces.
<br>
The only person who sensed the split between cs in the audience
and cs on the stage was Anja. After some hesitation she got up. I
felt like hugging her, and I wholeheartedly did after the closure.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think this is important. I believe that even if one is critical,
it is so important to respect and value the effort that people put
into the process. And NETMundial took a huge amount of effort. I
joined this process only at the end, when we were already in Sao
Paulo as I was invited to be a co-chair of principles. What was
clear to me from the meetings I attended (late into the night) was
how difficult it was to 'get the process right' and how hard people
tried. Also the Brazilian government and CGI.br people and everyone
else involved in the EMC and the secretariat.<br>
<br>
So big thank you to Adam, Jeanette, Marilia, Joana, Carlos Afonso
and all the other people who worked so hard to make sure civil
society views and participation featured prominently in the process.
I think you succeeded.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:53622767.3080206@wzb.eu" type="cite">
<br>
I guess what I want to say is that it a bit of expectation
management among civil society wouldn't hurt. This includes
putting outcomes such as the Sao Paulo statement into perspective
while they are negotiated. Only a few years ago we were unable to
get consensus for IGF main sessions focussing on human rights.
Plus, is is still open if we will ever move beyond a chair man's
report at the IGF. Recent reflections by cs people on netmundial
move into this direction.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agree. But we should also stay on our toes, and keep government and
business on theirs.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:53622767.3080206@wzb.eu" type="cite">jeanette
<br>
<br>
Am 30.04.14 21:44, schrieb Ian Peter:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The Niels statement was drawn up quickly
by a group of about 30 of us
<br>
sitting in the CS quarters of the conference hall after the
changed text
<br>
was leaked showing the last minute changes after the text left
the two
<br>
drafting committees.
<br>
<br>
Some of us would have gone further. Some were considering a walk
out.
<br>
The text was probably indicative of a more balanced approach
given the
<br>
mood at the time.
<br>
<br>
With a bit of distance from the disappointment at those changes,
perhaps
<br>
many feel differently. But it was an honest attempt to capture
the mood
<br>
at the time and I am personally glad civil society said
something rather
<br>
than nothing.
<br>
<br>
But with a bit of distance from the event perhaps many of us
have other
<br>
thoughts.
<br>
<br>
Ian Peter
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
<br>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 PM
<br>
To: Jeremy Malcolm
<br>
Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>
<
<br>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial
2014
<br>
outcome text open for endorsement
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I haven't endorsed it either for the
same reason.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave
the
<br>
impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the
opportunity to
<br>
speak and who did they say they represented?
<br>
<br>
Adam
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">--
<br>
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
<br>
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
<br>
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print
$3}'
<br>
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
<br>
recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
instructions, see
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://jere.my/l/pgp">http://jere.my/l/pgp</a>.
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org"><Andrew@gp-digital.org></a>
<br>
wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I think this is much too negative and
fails to reflect the amount of
<br>
positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of
the whole
<br>
process. I can’t support this statement
<br>
<br>
Andrew Puddephatt
<br>
Global Partners Digital
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Andrew@gp-digital.org">Andrew@gp-digital.org</a>
<br>
Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597
<br>
Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Jeremy Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au"><Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au></a>
<br>
Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au"><Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au></a>
<br>
Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44
<br>
To: "<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.net"><bestbits@lists. net></a>"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net"><bestbits@lists.bestbits.net></a>
<br>
Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial
2014 outcome
<br>
text open for endorsement
<br>
<br>
The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014
outcome text
<br>
was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil
society
<br>
representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten
Oever
<br>
from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse
and share:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response">http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response</a>
<br>
<br>
This need not prevent the development of a more substantive
civil
<br>
society response later.
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
<br>
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
<br>
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print
$3}'
<br>
<br>
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
<br>
recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
instructions, see
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://jere.my/l/pgp">http://jere.my/l/pgp</a>.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</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>