<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Let me try and put down my views on the <a
href="http://t.co/xUxOf0AvLl">World Economic Forum's NetMundial
Initiative</a> being launched in Geneva on 28th of Aug, of which
quite a number of people here seem to be a part of, in one way or
the other.<br>
<br>
1. On the face of it, one does not have any problem with the World
Economic Forum (WEF) undertaking an initiative on global Internet
governance. They have initiatives and reports on practically
everything under the sun. And it is not that WEF havent had an
initiative on IG ever before. They had for instance the 'Global
Agenda Council on the Future of the Internet'. We could pass by
another WEF initiative on IG without major attention or alarm.
Although, overall most progressive actors globally remain
considerably worried by the new global political assertion by the
richest and the most powerful people in the world through the form
and agency of the WEF and its outputs. But that larger concern is
less of an issue here.<br>
<br>
2. Organisations and networks that I work with had expressed
dis-satisfaction with the NetMundial process and outcomes. However,
there are a larger number of civil society persons and groups who
considered NetMundial just about what the doctor ordered, and have
since been celebrating NetMundial as the way to go forward with
regard to global Internet governance. Now, the surprise and the
question is: when these civil society actors who have shown such
deep commitment to NetMundial event and process as the ideal - or
close by, received word on the WEF's taking over of the NetMundial
process, <i><b>why did they not simply and strongly CRY FOUL</b></i>...
Why did they not just say, this is not acceptable. You guys cannot
highjack and run away with the brand of NetMundial. We own it
'together'. It was never supposed to be a forum led and guided by
the richest and the most powerful of the world, and so on... And
tell them to just back off. And tell them that they can forget any
cooperation, much less, attendance, from any civil society person or
group. Surely 'we ourselves' would in no way whatsoever lend any
legitimacy to this process - forget about attending the meeting. <br>
<br>
3. But I see nothing of such a kind. (In fact, very unfortunately we
got to hear about this initiative through online leaks.) Yes, a
feeble protestation and lament or two, with others not even doing
that and giving all the benefit of doubt to WEF and ICANN and
whoever is behind it, of all the possible good intentions. If only,
civil society groups and persons have reacted as I lay out above, <i><b>this
process could have been stopped in its tracks</b></i>. '<i>They</i>'
need to have civil society play along, for the masquerade of
multistakeholderism covering status quo power structures to work.
Unfortunately, our civil society leaders never seem to show the
strength of character, and leverage our collective strength which if
properly used can be such strong force in shaping global IG regimes.
We seem always so eager to give in. Lets be good, and trust other
people's good intention! We failed to speak up when ICANN (at US's
behest) so completely took over the Brazil meeting, and threw civil
society's (direct) representational claims aside; we stood quite
when 'they' foisted on us a civil society 'leader' at the Brazil
meeting ; and we whimpered and pulled back again when 'they' ran
away with what they wanted from the NetMundial outcome documents.
Civil society always gives in. It was not supposed to be list this.<br>
<br>
4. What will happen next? Yes, the civil society participants at the
WEF meeting will certainly say; no, this, is not the right way to do
things. And 'they' will say, sorry, we did not mean to hurt you. We
can always figure out the right way. And some concessions will be
thrown civil society's way, like: ok, we will allow you to choose
your reps (and then some groups/ persons will choose one another and
be right back, now on the behalf of the global civil society), we
will have a second phase after Feb 2015, which will be so much
better (there is always a promised second phase, isnt it), and so
on. With the hiccups accounted for, global IG civil society will
again put back its pretty smile, and off it would sail, happily
hereafter, in the lap of the richest and the most powerful,
precisely from whom the Internet needs to be saved. But forget such
petty details! We must celebrate the spirit and actions of
multistakeholderism and not allow minor issues to come in its way!<br>
<br>
But then maybe I am just a niggardly conspiracy theorist, and civil
society actors here are going to get together and shoot a letter to
the WEF to the effect that - it is none of their business to <br>
take up leadership of the NetMundial process, and we strongly resent
efforts to highjack it. The plans for the proposed NetMundial
Initiative must be shelved immediately, while WEF is welcome to
undertake any IG initiative under any name that it deems fit, which
is not a stolen one. In any case, do NOT expect any civil society
actor to turn up, or at least none of those undersigned are going to
be there... May, I suggest that we write such a letter from various
civil society groups. Because I am bored with making up conspiracy
theories :) <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 16 August 2014 11:23 AM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53EEF1D9.3020808@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Tom/ All<br>
<br>
<span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">A
much bigger problem than of allocating technology provided gains
between work (along with over consumption) and leisure (with
more controlled consumption) is of the allocation between
different groups and classes of people, and between different
geo-regions. It is a completely inexcusable crime of all those
who participate in the management of our societies today that
even with such stupendous technology/ productivity gains, about
13 percent of the world's population still goes to bed hungry,
and more than 30 percent of the children in developing countries
are stunted due to malnourishment (In India, close to 40
percent). Nearly half the world's population lives on less that
2.5 dollars a day. <br>
</span><br>
<span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">"The
world produces enough food to feed everyone...... </span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">the
principal underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary
operation of the economic and political systems in the world.
Essentially control over resources and income is based on
military, political and economic power that typically ends up in
the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the
bottom barely survive, if they do." <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm">http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm</a>
<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, wealth disparities are rising globally, at most
places very rapidly. A recent report says that </span>"t<span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">he
lower half of the global population possesses barely 1% of
global wealth, while the richest 10% of adults own 86% of all
wealth, and the top 1% account for 46% of the total. " And the
concentration of wealth is worsening almost everywhere.<br>
<br>
Nice time one would say to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://t.co/xUxOf0AvLl">attempt to move the locus of
global Internet governance to the World Economic Forum</a>,
that Mecca of the 1 percent, where 'they' develop blue prints
for where the world should go from here. We certainly need their
advice and leadership for shaping and governing the global
Internet. Power on the Internet isnt already concentrated
enough! <br>
<br>
One can only congratulate all those involved with the
initiative, and those contributing to it!<br>
<br>
Poor those who have been trying to occupy places that signified
wealth concentration - the occupy movement. It appears that it
is the civil society that is getting occupied in reverse. And it
is running into the trap gleefully, with open arms.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 16 August 2014 09:11 AM,
Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53EED2FE.5050300@communisphere.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Mike,<br>
<br>
Long ago I thought this problem could be solved by reallocating
resources: The availability of farm machinery has created more
food than we know what to do with; and half of New York seems to
be filled with storage bins filled with the abundance of
manufactured goods. And I thought that people be happy to retire
at 30. <br>
<br>
But assuming an abundance of energy and no environmental
limitations, would I like a 50 year retirement? These days I
seem to live for my work. If some machine takes it away, I'd be
left with a diminished life. <br>
<br>
How important is work to most peoples lives? <br>
<br>
Yes, I agree with the video, and the clock seems to be ticking.<br>
<br>
By posting on the governance list are you suggesting that
Internet governance and "technology management" be combined?<br>
<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/15/2014 6:42 PM, michael
gurstein wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:044501cfb8da$2a3bb0d0$7eb31270$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU</a>
So what do we do?
M
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>