<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<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 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 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 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>
<HR>
____________________________________________________________<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></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>