<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Not responding to Ian who is basically telling us not to do anything
, which is very fine with me, since my organisation and networks in
any case did not approve of the NetMundial process very much, as it
finally ended up. And so if it is now headed rather more clearly and
visibly to what we have been saying it is leaning towards (corporate
capture) we can simply say - did we not tell you! However painful
for us it is to say so. <br>
<br>
I will here just point to the fact, about which much blindness is
being practised - that the WEF initiative is but an obvious effort
to scuttle and undermine the WSIS plus 10 process. After US and its
allies tried their best inside the UN to prevent a high level plus
10 review, which they could not because it is mandated in the Tunis
agenda, it is now up to their lackeys in the private sector and the
so called techncial sector (ICANN) to take forward the dirty tricks
work - to do just everything to prevent a more democratic addressing
of the global Internet policy issues, which to almost everyone's
mind are becoming more and more serious by the day. And civil
society is playing along......<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, do remember (and a lot of effort is being put to forget
that fact) that developing countries had been asking for a full
fledged WSIS review process on the same lines as the original WSIS,
with prepcoms and all (this was repeatedly stated in G 77 draft
resolution for WSIS 10 review) . Once it were mandated so by th Gen
Assembly, we could have sought and perhaps got even better
participation methods beyond WSIS (which was itself highly
participatoy) by some on the floor tactics (as we did in the
original WSIS). But I do not understand why civil society positions
always seem to go with that of the US in such forums. In any case,
after trying not to allow any high level review at all, the
developed countires then managed to box the review process into as
limited a space and time as possible, in NY (and Not Geneva, mind
it) <b><i>which is primarily responsible for making the
participatory processes around it so poor.</i></b> But the fun
is, civil society now joins the US and its allies to again blame the
developing countries for this outcome that WSIS plus 10 will not be
as participatory as WSIS was. (Developing countries do not have the
time, resources or skills to confront such propaganda, and so it
goes on..) . Just how powerful some people are...<br>
<br>
And now since the developed countries have screwed up WSIS plus 10
and its participatory processes - so would the spiel go - the real
processes have to work outside the UN system. That is what the new
NetMundial Initiative is supposed to be, now under the powerful arua
and resources of the WEF .... But we can keep taking about trifles
and the good intention of all people. Good to keep civil society
occupied. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 17 August 2014 02:51 AM, Ian
Peter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:77E567DB63574E358BE65317A21A0CA9@Toshiba"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR:
#000000">
<div>From a personal perspective -</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I was also annoyed at the use of netmundial as a brand by
WEF – their letterhead on the leaked documents shows
netmundial.org as a document footer on World Economic Forum
letterhead.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I asked about this with no reply, and a whois search
reveals a private owner of netmundial.org. However, given
its existence and historical use prior to the Brazilian
event, it would appear that the domain name is owned by
ICANN. It would therefore seem that ICANN allowed WEF use of
the name.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would be keen to know the conditions (if any) attached
to this use. I would also think that perhaps the original
netmundial site (netmundial.br) should be watching this
closely and reacting if the brand is compromised. As far as
I can see netmundial.br is not ICANN property.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In any case; at this stage the WEF initiative is to bring
together some people to form an initiative – it is not
announcing WEF or the meeting attendees as the NetMundial
initiative, but a group of people discussing how to form
such an initiative. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If CS withdraws, people will claim that CS was
represented anyway, given that in that category the meeting
organisers include (erroneously) ISOC, technical community
reps, and UN officials. They will just say a radical fringe
withdrew.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, much though I think the representation is unbalanced,
and much though I think the use of the term netmundial by
WEF should be strongly challenged, I think the best approach
to dealing with this is for the (very few) CS reps to attend
and say this strongly, pointing forcefully to the netmundial
principles including transparency and inclusiveness, and
insisting that these be followed in any initiative. If there
is to be a walkout because the emerging initiative does not
take account of these and associated netmundial principles,
I think a walkout during the meeting would draw more
attention than a boycott beforehand.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What I would actually hope for, and what would be
consistent with the multistakeholder beliefs espoused (but
not always practiced) by ICANN, USG et al who are key
participants of this meeting, would be for WEF to commit
funds *with no conditions whatsoever* to an ongoing
initiative which ensures inclusiveness, equitable
representation for civil society, and looks to develop
equitable participation in internet governance. If there was
an outcome where such funds were committed to an ongoing
initiative without conditions, that could be useful. And it
the resulting initiative was formed with the right
principles, and carried forward the name netmundial, that
would be fine I think. A lot to hope for I know...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But we certainly need something to happen. This years
IGC looks like it will be without one of our IGC co
ordinators, because of lack of funding. I will not be able
to attend for similar reasons, nor will Gunela, organising a
disability workshop. I am sure there are many others. The
current situation where funding bodies work independently
and in an ad hoc manner to fund whoever *they* want to
attend IGF etc is problematic in the extreme, and I would
welcome some independent funding source that could
transparently support diverse and representative CS
participation in such events. Otherwise multistakeholder is
meaningless. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ian Peter</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none;
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal;
COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline">
<div style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
title="parminder@itforchange.net"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder</a>
</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:56 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="governance@lists.igcaucus.org"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> [governance] WEF's NetMundial
Initiative and civil society</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none;
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal;
COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline"><br>
Let me try and put down my views on the <a
moz-do-not-send="true" 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">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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm"
moz-do-not-send="true">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
href="http://t.co/xUxOf0AvLl" moz-do-not-send="true">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">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 href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU</a>
So what do we do?
M
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>
</p>
<hr>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>