<p>Of course, I did ! My apologies ...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>JLF<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /><br /></p>
<blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left: #ff0000 2px solid;">> Message du 05/05/14 12:18<br />> De : "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" <br />> A : governance@lists.igcaucus.org, "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" <br />> Copie à : "JFC Morfin" , "Norbert Bollow" <br />> Objet : Re: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial<br />> <br />>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: #000000; font-family: Optima; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: #000000; font-family: Optima; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium;">Dear Jean-Louis,</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am a proud signatory of the Delhi Declaration, and a humble co-founder of the JNC - but I assume you meant "thanks JNC and Norbert" and not JCN - a though amusing little typo!</div>
<div><br />></div>
<div>JCN</div>
<div><br />></div>
<br />>
<div>
<div>Le 5 mai 2014 à 11:50, Jean-Louis FULLSACK a écrit :</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />
<blockquote>
<p>> I agree ! And add : this response is also interpellating all CS people. Thanks JCN and Norberrt.</p>
<div> </div>
<p>> Jean-Louis Fullsack<br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> <br />></p>
<blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left: #ff0000 2px solid;">> Message du 05/05/14 11:31<br />> > De : "JFC Morfin" <br />> > A : <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>, "Norbert Bollow" , "IGC" <br />> > Copie à : <br />> > Objet : Re: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial<br />> > <br />> > Brillant!<br />> > jfc<br />> > <br />> > At 09:49 05/05/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br />> > <br />> > >Just Net Coalition has released a response to the NetMundial Outcome<br />> > >Document:<br />> > ><br />> > >http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document<br />> > ><br />> > >Greetings,<br />> > >Norbert<br />> > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition<br />> > ><br />> > ><br />> > >The JNC Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document<br />> > ><br />> > >The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of<br />> > >NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain<br />> > >important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on<br />> > >managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the<br />> > >document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the<br />> > >inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on<br />> > >intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the<br />> > >omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on<br />> > >net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all<br />> > >about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with<br />> > >new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed<br />> > >by different actors in the future.<br />> > ><br />> > >For the Just Net Coalition, "democratic multistakeholder processes for<br />> > >Internet governance" means democratic processes with clear guidelines<br />> > >for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and<br />> > >responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous<br />> > >interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not<br />> > >favour the "equal-footing multi-stakeholder model" and thus a clear<br />> > >departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was<br />> > >proposed in the original draft of the outcome document.<br />> > ><br />> > >While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is<br />> > >worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the<br />> > >meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was<br />> > >made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision<br />> > >making on international issues. This "equal footing multi-stakeholder<br />> > >model" would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big<br />> > >business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we<br />> > >will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose<br />> > >the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy.<br />> > ><br />> > >We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at<br />> > >NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the<br />> > >red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful<br />> > >parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business.<br />> > >In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful<br />> > >interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the<br />> > >point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed<br />> > >norms, such as happened at NetMundial.<br />> > ><br />> > >The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements,<br />> > >particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed<br />> > >"in the public interest". While falling short of the civil society<br />> > >demand for characterizing the Internet as a "global commonsâ or "public<br />> > >good", it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says<br />> > >that the Internet is "a global facility available to the public and its<br />> > >governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society<br />> > >agenda".<br />> > ><br />> > >We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic<br />> > >multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly<br />> > >foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of<br />> > >networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour<br />> > >the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and<br />> > >more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes<br />> > >must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and<br />> > >private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies.<br />> > ><br />> > >The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic<br />> > >multi-stakeholder model<br />> > ><br />> > >President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue<br />> > >between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final<br />> > >outcome document in the roadmap section accepts "the full involvement<br />> > >of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities" and<br />> > >is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda.<br />> > >The outcome document has further held, "Governments have primary, legal<br />> > >and political accountability for the protection of human rights". The<br />> > >NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda,<br />> > >creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision<br />> > >making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing<br />> > >these new openings wil involve clear definitions and guidelines for the<br />> > >"democratic multistakeholder process" model.<br />> > ><br />> > >NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalising<br />> > >multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of<br />> > >"multistakeholderism in practice" included the seemingly open format of<br />> > >"selecting" the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda<br />> > >setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for<br />> > >contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions<br />> > >and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the<br />> > >initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong<br />> > >contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these<br />> > >could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the<br />> > >delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an<br />> > >appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or<br />> > >alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how<br />> > >multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the<br />> > >fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were<br />> > >flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes<br />> > >themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and<br />> > >that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily<br />> > >dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be<br />> > >viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which<br />> > >ultimately only works for the few?<br />> > ><br />> > >In this regard, we see the reference to "democratic multistakeholder<br />> > >processes" in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now<br />> > >need to spell out what would constitute "democratic multistakeholder<br />> > >processes". This of course includes the NetMundial call for further<br />> > >discussions on "different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in<br />> > >Internet governance" and its two references to "respective roles and<br />> > >responsibilities". This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration<br />> > >of what is a "democratic multistakeholder process" where, of course,<br />> > >corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions<br />> > >regarding public policy issues.<br />> > ><br />> > >The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if<br />> > >public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through<br />> > >democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from<br />> > >citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or<br />> > >institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens<br />> > >they represent.<br />> > ><br />> > >Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and<br />> > >Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights<br />> > >(ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct<br />> > >of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or<br />> > >through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes<br />> > >should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such<br />> > >decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations<br />> > >rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in<br />> > >violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR.<br />> > ><br />> > >Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory<br />> > ><br />> > >We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding<br />> > >certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see:<br />> > >http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response.<br />> > ><br />> > >Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible<br />> > >with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and<br />> > >proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down<br />> > >with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly<br />> > >resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we<br />> > >note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have<br />> > >primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human<br />> > >rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and<br />> > >globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global<br />> > >system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments<br />> > >must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own<br />> > >citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their<br />> > >jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global.<br />> > ><br />> > >In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and<br />> > >cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for<br />> > >addressing the issue of cyber-weapons.<br />> > ><br />> > >Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality.<br />> > >Marco Civil the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European<br />> > >parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality.<br />> > >Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to<br />> > >bury net neutrality in the "Future Plans" section of the NetMundial<br />> > >outcome document.<br />> > ><br />> > >Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to<br />> > >copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the<br />> > >text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business<br />> > >representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that<br />> > >new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly<br />> > >there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have<br />> > >been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not<br />> > >validly part of it:<br />> > ><br />> > >First, while references to the "right to access, share, create and<br />> > >distribute information" exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone<br />> > >basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is<br />> > >limited to what is "consistent with the rights of authors and creators<br />> > >as established in law". The right to share and communicate has now been<br />> > >circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to<br />> > >be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators<br />> > >to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international<br />> > >copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative<br />> > >document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the<br />> > >existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our<br />> > >belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must<br />> > >be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that<br />> > >non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made<br />> > >legal.<br />> > ><br />> > >Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations,<br />> > >having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet<br />> > >users, has now been coupled with "private policing" for enforcing<br />> > >Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging<br />> > >"cooperation among all stakeholders" in order to "address and deter<br />> > >illegal activity" which is in fact, well understood as coded language<br />> > >for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other<br />> > >intermediaries.<br />> > ><br />> > >It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to<br />> > >the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the<br />> > >OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago.<br />> > ><br />> > >Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which<br />> > >President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access:<br />> > >i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to<br />> > >respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital<br />> > >economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and<br />> > >re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within<br />> > >countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the<br />> > >outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic<br />> > >justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet<br />> > >and the digital economy.<br />> > ><br />> > >Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition<br />> > >is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the<br />> > >transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US<br />> > >government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it<br />> > >sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions.<br />> > >While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government<br />> > >supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way<br />> > >in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact<br />> > >that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the<br />> > >transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this<br />> > >transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in<br />> > >a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that<br />> > >ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the<br />> > >"open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending<br />> > >beyond the ICANN community" for "discussion about mechanisms for<br />> > >guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions<br />> > >after the US Government role ends.â<br />> > ><br />> > ><br />> > ><br />> > >Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet)<br />> > ><br />> > >May 3, 2014<br />> > ><br />> > >http://JustNetCoalition.org<br />> > ><br />> > >info@JustNetCoalition.org<br />> > ><br />> > ><br />> > >(1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that "everyone can<br />> > >create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling<br />> > >individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in<br />> > >promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of<br />> > >life....".<br />> > ><br />> > >(2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in<br />> > >particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root<br />> > >zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS).<br />> > ><br />> > >(3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is<br />> > >currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with<br />> > >the US government.<br />> > ><br />> > ><br />> > ><br />> > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br />> > >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"<br />> > ><br />> > >____________________________________________________________<br />> > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br />> > > <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br />> > >To be removed from the list, visit:<br />> > > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br />> > ><br />> > >For all other list information and functions, see:<br />> > > <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br />> > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br />> > > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br />> > ><br />> > >Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br />> > <br />> > <br />> > ____________________________________________________________<br />> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br />> > <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br />> > To be removed from the list, visit:<br />> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br />> > <br />> > For all other list information and functions, see:<br />> > <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br />> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br />> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br />> > <br />> > Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br />> ></blockquote>
____________________________________________________________<br />> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br />> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br />> To be removed from the list, visit:<br />> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br />> <br />> For all other list information and functions, see:<br />> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br />> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br />> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br />> <br />> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br />></blockquote>
</div>
<br />><!-- PART SEPARATOR --><br /><br /><br />____________________________________________________________<br />You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br /> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br />To be removed from the list, visit:<br /> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing<br /><br />For all other list information and functions, see:<br /> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance<br />To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br /> http://www.igcaucus.org/<br /><br />Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br /><br /></blockquote>