<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
There have been many good and useful things said on this list, and
the 1net list. I wanted to respond to some; I will try to be brief
and round them all up here, ccing the folks on the 1net list whom I
wish to respond to, not knowing whether others on this list want
their views shared.<br>
1. I tend to agree with Nnenna's comment last week that moving
forward is better than going in circles. However, the fact that she
cannot attend the August meeting yet is listed is troubling. Tick
box checked, African civil society person invited. The fact that
the visa is a problem is also, I think, a matter we should try and
fix. As a spoiled westerner, I must confess I was shocked at the
discussion about the hassles of getting visas for IGF. Surely host
countries of Internet governance and ICANN meetings can do better,
in terms of streamlining the visa process? IF not, it makes a
mockery of the multi-stakeholder process that is supposed to be
embracing developing countries. I was surprised to learn that when
Toronto hosted the ICANN meeting a couple of years ago, many people
could not get visas, and if anyone can give me further details on
that, I would like to be enlightened. I know we could not get one
of our experts on the EWG into Buenos Aires for that ICANN meeting
last year, and I am sure there are many other examples. I see this
as a problem that needs fixing, and yes I understand the sovereign
rights of states, which is why fixing it could take time and serious
effort. Necessary if we are not to be hypocritical though. I will
refrain from breaking into a separate rant about free trade without
free movement of people.<br>
2. I must confess a bias against Davos and the WEF. I have never
been, but I have seen folks in both public and private sector who
went, coming back with a glitter in their eyes indicating a sense of
their own importance in global governance that I regard as
worrisome. Perhaps it is the altitude, but I suspect it is the
sense of exclusiveness. This is not the spirit we want for global
internet governance. I make no apology for sounding like a
Puritan. <br>
3. Re WSIS....I might not go so far as Parminder does, but I think
he has a point. Those who go to the Netmundial meeting in August
must be very careful to re-steer the ship towards open, fair,
multi-stakeholder processes. The Brazilian Netmundial was not
perfect, but our hosts worked very hard, trying very hard, to manage
the politics and be inclusive (here, of course, I am disagreeing
with Parminder's conclusions about that meeting). I think it was a
real step forward and we must ensure we don't step backwards. RE
Parminder's last line, which I think bears repetition....<i>Good to
keep civil society occupied....</i>I think this is a very real
issue/risk. I cannot keep up with the number of processes going on,
things to read and comment on, etc. Every minute spent on that is a
minute not spent on fixing a tangible problem (eg. Visas, long term
funding for IGF, lobbying government to pitch in and take a stand on
a few key issues, locating new and young talent to get engaged,
writing a new privacy policy for ICANN, developing a plan for
anonymous domain registration, etc etc.) All these meetings in
exotic places must be assessed re outcomes, or we are wasting our
time. Meetings in exotic places (being puritanical again) cannot
become the golden apples that Hippomenes used to divert Atalanta and
win the race...having said that, I am very encouraged to see who is
going, and I am sure that this tiny crew will represent us nobly. <br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14-08-17 12:35 AM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53F0310B.4080008@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
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">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>