<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Please find as below, and enclosed...<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US"><font size="4"><i><b>Initial
response
of Just Net Coalition to the early draft of NetMundial
outcome document</b></i></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">11th
April, 2014</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">We commend
the NetMundial process for its openness in inviting, receiving and
reviewing submissions from the range of public interest actors as
well as private interest ones. We thank the Executive
Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) for developing the first draft of
their report which we had the opportunity to access through
wikileaks and on which we would like to comment in advance of the
finalized report. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">We think
that the EMC has made a sincere effort to combine the various
inputs
into a coherent whole and the resulting draft provides some useful
elements. We must observe however that the inputs cannot be viewed
as being truly representative of the totality of Internet users,
much
less of the totality of the world’s population which should
benefit
from the Internet, because the there is a great dis-balance in
terms
of groups and constituencies that have contributed inputs.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">We
especially note positively the mention of the 'necessary and
proportionate' principles for surveillance practices and the need
for
an international treaty to deal with jurisdictional issues, cyber
crime and to restrain cyber weapons. We also commend the
recommendations on open and inclusive IG processes at all level,
particularly the inclusion of participation of all interested
actors. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Having
said this, we must express our dissatisfaction with the current
document as having largely failed to meet the high expectations of
a
new start that the world community had placed on the NetMundial
meeting. That high expectation was not necessarily to achieve full
consensus: we know that many issues are contentious. The
expectation
was that there would be a full and open airing of the issues, with
frank and robust discussions.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Reading
between the lines, it is clear that the document effectively
endorses the current Internet Governance status quo along with
suggestions for minor changes. While being able to present
substantially new proposals for change may have been difficult at
such short notice, sadly we see the document as not even opening
up
new directions, and in fact perhaps closing down some that are
currently being discussed in other places. In our view, the
document
avoids dealing with contentious issues. We believe that it is
essential that the existence of such contentious issues be openly
acknowledged, in particular since some of those issues have been
under discussion for years and are of fundamental importance.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US"> The
document does not contain any forwarding looking proposals for
addressing the absence of any means or mechanisms at the global
level
that could democratically address the urgent and important public
policy issues that currently face the global community. Further
the
document fails even to appropriately frame the problem. In this
sense it represents a retreat from the Tunis Agenda – which is
surprising, since during the 10 years since the Tunis agenda was
written the the global importance of public policy issues
pertaining
to the Internet has only exponentially increased in importance. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">It is
noteworthy that the Tunis agenda is referred to only once in the
whole document, and in that instance as indicating quite
incorrectly
that that the Tunis Agenda has been implemented: “The
implementation of the Tunis Agenda has demonstrated the value of
the
Multistakeholder model in Internet governance.” Such a statement,
suggesting closure on Tunis Agenda, is really surprising
especially
when there is a UN working Group that is currently mandated to
develop recommendations to 'fully implement Tunis Agenda'
especially
with regard to the key issue of addressing Internet-related public
policy issues. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">After
saying that mechanisms may be needed to address 'emerging' public
policy issues (using the unfortunate term 'orphan issues' which
gives
a kind of 'residual' status to one of the most significant set of
global public policy issues) the draft veers towards recommending
(1)
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as the principal site for
addressing
of these issue (although in a bit apologetic and round about
language) and (2) improving information flows between existing
fora
dealing with Internet-related public policy issues.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">While some
believe that IGF needs to be strengthened as a global policy
dialogue
space, and that all kinds of information flows between concerned
institutions enhanced, this recipe for 'institutional reform'
basically just rubber stamps the status quo of global Internet
governance. This approach would mean that there would continue to
be
no global policy mechanisms to respond to the range of issues that
have and are emerging globally concerning the impact of the
Internet
in economic restructuring and in helping to ameliorate the extreme
concentrations of economic, social, cultural and geo-political
controls that are emerging on and through the global Internet. The
current draft completely fails at its central task, which is to
give
direction for responding to the principal problem facing the world
today: how to channel the extremely powerful forces of the
Internet
into the support of the public good. It is this that we and many
others believe to be the central challenge and opportunity for the
NetMundial meeting.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">The second
major issue with the current document is that while it refers
repeatedly to “multistakeholderism” and “stakeholders” as
providing the frameworks for Internet Governance nowhere does it
mention democracy or how multistakeholderism might contribute to
or
enhance the fundamental elements of democracy on which so much of
human rights Internet freedom and social justice are based. This
is
truly alarming given the stridency with which so many actors are
attempting to ensure that those pursuing private interests and the
corporate sector have an equal role with those legitimately
representing the public interest in the determination of public
policy. It must be remembered that the Tunis Agenda repeatedly
speaks
of 'democratic (processes)' when referring to global Internet
governance. Omission of this primary political norm from the
NetMndial text is therefore highly objectionable and completely
unacceptable.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">The
document must therefore underline that </p>
<ol>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">while the formulation
of technical standards and technical coordination activities
may most effectively be undertaken through an “equal footing
of all stakeholders”, there is no basis for extending such a
formulation or such mechanisms beyond the technical into
broader areas of public policy decision making </p>
</li>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">whereas all
stakeholders should be able to freely input into public policy
making processes, and even have a right to know how their
inputs were considered, the right to make the final decisions
on public policies rests with legitimate public interest
actors that hold political responsibilities arising from
formal democratic processes (this was also the process
followed for the famous 'Marco Civil' legislation, and there
can and should be no other kind of process for legitimate
public policy making) .</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">While the
draft document mentions the 'respective roles and
responsibilities'
of stakeholders in two places, these references are mitigated
through
questionable language in many other places in the document. The
document should therefore clearly declare that MSism outside of
the
technical sphere is only operative within and as a contributor to
the
more fundamental democratic framework, and as well the term
democratic should in all places be used in conjunction with the
multistakeholder terminology. As the document calls for further
discussions on 'respective roles and responsibilities' it should
also
be mentioned that such a discussion should take place within a
larger
discussion and debate on the relationship between democracy and
MSism. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Specifically,
one new item should be added to the Human Rights catalog under II
on
page 3: “Democracy: everyone shall have the right and opportunity
to take part in the conduct of public affairs and public policy
decisions, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">A third
issue with the current draft is the almost total neglect of global
Internet-related public policy issues of an economic, social and
cultural nature. While development and cultural diversity is
mentioned in the context of “Internet principles”, there is
nothing concerning key global public policy issues of this nature
on
the operations part, which though, admirably, does talk about
global
agreements on surveillance and cyber peace. As the Internet
increasingly determines the global distribution of economic,
social
and cultural resources, we need global mechanisms to deal with the
emerging distortions in such distribution. It was hoped that with
a
developing country taking the lead for the first time in steering
a
global IG discussion, such issues would come to the fore, not only
in
terms of statements of concerns, but also in terms of actual
proposals for addressing them. The draft document needs
significant
improvement in this regard. (Also, a full mention of the term 'net
neutrality' is needed and not just a reference to 'neutrality'
which
can be interpreted in different ways.)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Recognition
of the Internet as a public good and a global commons must be
stated
as a primary principle underlying various Internet related public
policies. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Further,
even on issues such as democratization of technical coordination
functions and their oversight, the document does not go beyond
what
has recently been declared by the US government and as is being
pursued by ICANN. There is a need to discuss – without any
preconditions – what kind of structure is most appropriate for
managing the DNS and other critical Internet resources. We must
for
instance affirm the need for freeing such technical coordination
functions from the jurisdiction of any one country, and the
simultaneous need for appropriate oversight of these functions by
the
global community. <b> </b>Specifically, the following should be
added
at the end of the second paragraph of 4 of III, on page 9, add:
“The
operational aspects must not be subject to the law of any one
country, that is, they must benefit from immunity of
jurisdiction.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Given the
limited time to evaluate and study this document, we are of the
view
that it should not be endorsed or approved at the meeting, it
should
be noted. It will then provide a useful input for further
discussions.</p>
</body>
</html>