<div dir="ltr">Did Wikileaks and Snowden hit us so hard that we stopped trusting each other as well as "them", the ones who are watching us all the time, the ones we thought we could trust? <div>The Istanbul IGC face to face meeting, which didn't happen, (my fault, I was so busy I forgot to send reminders and there was also a confusion about the room,) ended up with three of us - Nnenna, Anja and myself, and Mawaki waiting at the other end of a skype connection. (Thank you to those who came and to all of you who apologised for not turning up). </div><div>We chatted while we were waiting, nothing formal, just brainstorming about the IGC and its troubles. We came to the conclusion that initially the IGC brought many different views to the table, but in an atmosphere of mutual respect. The tension, the quarrel if you like, was between the different view points, not between the different members. People brought their own ideas, but they also brought a willingness to listen. The atmosphere was positive, negotiation towards common ground in so far as that was possible. (Not all of the time of course - IGC members are as human as anyone else, but mostly)</div><div>Somewhere that got lost, and the trust that had enabled to group to work together in spite of many differences just disappeared. And a huge rift drained strength from the civil society lobby.</div><div>Trusting is fairly easy to do at the beginning of a relationship, almost automatic. But if that initial trust is lost then it becomes really hard work requiring a great deal of self-control to rebuild it.</div><div>We should ask ourselves whether we have the energy to rebuild that trust, because without it I don't think we're going to get very far.</div><div>Rather more than two cents worth</div><div>Deirdre</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 21 November 2014 20:16, Ian Peter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Parminder,<br>
<br>
I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought some of Jeremys comments were over the top too.<br>
<br>
If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute depression as a result.<br>
<br>
I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or not trying to) convey.<br>
<br>
Ian<br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- From: <a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM<br>
To: Ian Peter<br>
Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; Anriette Esterhuysen ; Governance ; Best Bits<br>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks Nnenna.<br>
<br>
Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ian<br>
<br>
But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather<br>
erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious<br>
utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a<br>
long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN<br>
Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on<br>
JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general<br>
abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members.<br>
<br>
In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a<br>
political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on<br>
social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an<br>
overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It<br>
would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated.<br>
<br>
The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones<br>
personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop<br>
expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we<br>
concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have<br>
already been silenced on this issue.<br>
<br>
We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to<br>
respect differences of opinion.<br>
<br>
Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC<br>
as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants<br>
everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives<br>
and create a more just world†. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of<br>
social justice.<br>
<br>
Ian Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Nnenna Nwakanma<br>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM<br>
To: michael gurstein<br>
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits<br>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial<br>
Initiative - RFC<br>
<br>
Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the<br>
more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not<br>
perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as<br>
abandoning the pursuit of social justice?<br>
<br>
<br>
If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson<br>
Mandela. And it is him who said:<br>
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your<br>
enemy. Then he becomes your partner."<br>
<br>
<br>
I will rest my case for now<br>
<br>
<br>
Nnenna<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers<br>
some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,<br>
you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social<br>
justice.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
M<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits-request@lists.<u></u>bestbits.net</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits-request@<u></u>lists.bestbits.net</a>] On Behalf Of Anriette<br>
Esterhuysen<br>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM<br>
To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma<br>
Cc: Governance; Best Bits<br>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in<br>
NETmundial Initiative - RFC<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear all<br>
<br>
I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our<br>
members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with<br>
project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on<br>
IG, so apologies for not participating.<br>
<br>
Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have<br>
also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there<br>
are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process<br>
a try.<br>
<br>
I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,<br>
and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.<br>
I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is<br>
legitimate and clear.<br>
<br>
I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how<br>
Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and<br>
white'.<br>
<br>
My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we<br>
expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August<br>
have actually been addressed.<br>
<br>
I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more<br>
transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its<br>
mechanisms.<br>
<br>
But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we<br>
should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at<br>
national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to<br>
many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive<br>
democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through<br>
closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental<br>
processes and mechanisms.<br>
<br>
I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.<br>
<br>
My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the<br>
following:<br>
<br>
- a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us<br>
- a limited timeframe<br>
- agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we<br>
continue or not<br>
<br>
<br>
My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it<br>
closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to<br>
get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our<br>
particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the<br>
process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.<br>
<br>
This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns<br>
out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and<br>
we can always withdraw.<br>
<br>
Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,<br>
to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive<br>
processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that<br>
backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial<br>
would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,<br>
internet governance.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed<br>
some light on why their government has decided to support this<br>
initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful?<br>
I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and<br>
can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour<br>
of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though<br>
as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations<br>
who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the<br>
wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the<br>
Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a<br>
new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have<br>
already given themselves some fixed seats.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee<br>
means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"<br>
clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others<br>
on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at<br>
NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would<br>
be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel<br>
like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to<br>
rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay<br>
them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain<br>
a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of<br>
our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is<br>
something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me<br>
in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual<br>
initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the<br>
structure as a whole, I am not so certain)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring<br>
the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by<br>
Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're<br>
thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it<br>
forward.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks and best,<br>
<br>
Anja<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <<a href="mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com" target="_blank">nnenna75@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil<br>
Society members here.<br>
<br>
My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to<br>
table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be<br>
withdrawn if XYZ is not met.<br>
<br>
I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I<br>
dont think we should miss out.<br>
<br>
NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.<br>