<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); 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: rgb(0, 0, 0); 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><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></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 type="cite"><p>I agree ! And add : this response is also interpellating all CS people. Thanks JCN and Norberrt.</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></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 commons†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></body></html>