<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><html><div id='yahoo__compose_area' style="background-color:white; display:block; font-family:HelveticaNeue-Regular,Helvetica; font-size:15px;">The debate is no longer moving in a right and constructive way. We may need to make a plan for the future and conclude the debate on the lists. <br><br>------------------<br>Arsene Tungali,<br>Executive Director, Rudi International<br><a href="http://www.rudiinternational.org" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="0">www.rudiinternational.org</a><br><br>Founder, Mabingwa Forum<br><a href="http://www.mabingwa-forum.com" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1">www.mabingwa-forum.com</a><br>Phone:<a href="tel:+243993810967" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone"
x-apple-data-detectors-result="2">+243993810967</a><br><br>ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance.<br>Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)<br><br>Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone</div><div id='yahoo__original_message' class='yQTDBase'><br><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex; ">At 22 nov. 2014 01:42:30, <a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="4">parminder@itforchange.net</a><'<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="5">parminder@itforchange.net</a>'> wrote:<div id="msgSandbox_AJwJDNkAABG6VG2FN5gAAAOHwN94" class="msgSandbox" style="padding: 1.5em 0.5em 0.5em 1.2em; word-wrap: break-word;">> Thanks Nnenna.<br>><br>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot
tolerate differences of opinion.<br><br>Ian<br><br>But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather<br>erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious<br>utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a<br>long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN<br>Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on<br>JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general<br>abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members.<br><br>In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a<br>political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on<br>social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an<br>overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world.<br><br>parminder<br><br><br><br>><br>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many
others. It<br>> would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated.<br>><br>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones<br>> personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop<br>> expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we<br>> concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have<br>> already been silenced on this issue.<br>><br>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to<br>> respect differences of opinion.<br>><br>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC<br>> as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants<br>> everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives<br>> and create a more just worldâ€. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of<br>> social justice.<br>><br>> Ian Peter<br>><br>><br>><br>> From: Nnenna
Nwakanma<br>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM<br>> To: michael gurstein<br>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits<br>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial<br>> Initiative - RFC<br>><br>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the<br>> more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not<br>> perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as<br>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?<br>><br>><br>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson<br>> Mandela. And it is him who said:<br>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your<br>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."<br>><br>><br>> I will rest my case for now<br>><br>><br>> Nnenna<br>><br>><br>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <<a ymailto="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"
href="javascript:return">gurstein@gmail.com</a>><br>> wrote:<br>><br>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers<br>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,<br>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social<br>> justice.<br>><br>><br>><br>> M<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> From: <a ymailto="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net" href="javascript:return">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>> [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net" href="javascript:return">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a>] On Behalf Of Anriette<br>> Esterhuysen<br>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM<br>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma<br>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits<br>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in<br>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC<br>><br>><br>><br>> Dear all<br>><br>> I have been fairly
silent on this issue and APC is consulting our<br>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with<br>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on<br>> IG, so apologies for not participating.<br>><br>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have<br>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there<br>> are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process<br>> a try.<br>><br>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,<br>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.<br>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is<br>> legitimate and clear.<br>><br>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how<br>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and<br>> white'.<br>><br>> My feeling at this point is that some
of the strong concerns we<br>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August<br>> have actually been addressed.<br>><br>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more<br>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its<br>> mechanisms.<br>><br>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we<br>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at<br>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to<br>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive<br>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through<br>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental<br>> processes and mechanisms.<br>><br>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.<br>><br>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the<br>>
following:<br>><br>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us<br>> - a limited timeframe<br>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we<br>> continue or not<br>><br>><br>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it<br>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to<br>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our<br>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the<br>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.<br>><br>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns<br>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and<br>> we can always withdraw.<br>><br>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,<br>> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive<br>> processes in internet
governance simply fizzling out. I think that<br>> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial<br>> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,<br>> internet governance.<br>><br>> Anriette<br>><br>><br>><br>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>><br>> Dear all,<br>><br>><br>><br>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed<br>> some light on why their government has decided to support this<br>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful?<br>> I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and<br>> can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.<br>><br>><br>><br>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour<br>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though<br>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations<br>> who want to
participate to continue doing so and report back to the<br>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the<br>> Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a<br>> new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have<br>> already given themselves some fixed seats.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee<br>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"<br>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others<br>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at<br>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would<br>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel<br>> like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to<br>> rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay<br>> them, somehow the structure and the
initiatives it gives birth to gain<br>> a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of<br>> our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is<br>> something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me<br>> in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual<br>> initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the<br>> structure as a whole, I am not so certain)<br>><br>><br>><br>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring<br>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by<br>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're<br>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it<br>> forward.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Thanks and best,<br>><br>> Anja<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <<a
ymailto="mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com" href="javascript:return">nnenna75@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil<br>> Society members here.<br>><br>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to<br>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be<br>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met.<br>><br>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I<br>> dont think we should miss out.<br>><br>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.<br>> >From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very<br>> interested in the NMI.<br>><br>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to<br>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.<br>><br>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And<br>> at the same time, saying that it is important for
African S to<br>> participate.<br>><br>> All for now<br>><br>> Nnenna<br>><br>><br>><br>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global<br>> Journal <<a ymailto="mailto:jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net" href="javascript:return">jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Jeremy,<br>><br>> Thanks for your email.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both<br>> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise<br>> to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real<br>> politics.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect<br>> and impact.<br>><br>><br>><br>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or<br>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of<br>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion.
It<br>> looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate<br>> grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep<br>> pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to<br>> clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an<br>> intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more<br>> than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In<br>> the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you<br>> need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line.<br>> No, let's stay on what is at stake such as<br>><br>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US<br>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?<br>><br>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing<br>> and growing?<br>><br>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,<br>> insufficiently at the center of
the IG debate? Isn't encryption part<br>> of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao<br>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass<br>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.<br>><br>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU<br>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view,<br>> that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple<br>> links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good<br>> debate for CS.<br>><br>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More<br>> important than IANA for example?<br>><br>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it<br>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is<br>> saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we<br>> help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds?
Looking<br>> at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed<br>> with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical<br>> corps. They also create more "values".<br>><br>><br>><br>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.<br>> Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is<br>> relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this<br>> is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote<br>> someone today.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in<br>> a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist<br>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get<br>> it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to<br>> go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when<br>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they
keep<br>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory<br>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry.<br>> We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.<br>><br>><br>><br>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a<br>> debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments,<br>> citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the<br>> growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of<br>> History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not<br>> united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust,<br>> share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights.<br>> This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and<br>> little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.<br>> JNC is not
getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more<br>> and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about<br>> having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and<br>> the current mandarins to take more progressive steps.<br>> Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many<br>> participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long<br>> before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes<br>> to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply<br>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision,<br>> they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better<br>> than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political<br>> model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social<br>> disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.<br>><br>><br>><br>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough,
our<br>> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no<br>> corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound<br>> democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are<br>> ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as<br>> psychotics or lunatics.<br>><br>><br>><br>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil<br>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree<br>> that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not<br>> have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in<br>> the debate. That would be fair.<br>><br>><br>><br>> JC<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global<br>> Journal <<a ymailto="mailto:jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net"
href="javascript:return">jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net</a>> wrote:<br>><br>><br>><br>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email.<br>> On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the<br>> "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,<br>><br>><br>><br>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post<br>> about this at <a href="http://igfwatch.org" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="20">igfwatch.org</a>, because JNC’s pathologies are<br>> off-topic for this list.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do<br>> listen to non JNC members:<br>><br>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread<br>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask<br>> Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that
understanding of what is<br>> the WIB Initiative)<br>><br>><br>><br>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some<br>> quarters to create a "UN Security Councilâ€<br>><br>><br>><br>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi<br>> Chehadé: ...<br>><br>><br>><br>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the<br>> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for<br>> global [Internet] governanceâ€.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC<br>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance<br>> to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to<br>> blunt) of the NetMundial
meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are<br>> owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due<br>> reserves by different participants.<br>><br>><br>><br>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial<br>> Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of<br>> the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.<br>><br>><br>><br>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...<br>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious<br>> concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives<br>> presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I<br>> certainly have<br>> (<a href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles"
target="_blank">http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles</a>).<br>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial<br>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of<br>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their<br>> endorsement of the Initiative.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which<br>> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently<br>> received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against).<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):<br>><br>><br>><br>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now<br>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a<br>> flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response
just<br>> because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you -<br>> I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your<br>> questions rather than me monopolising the conversation.<br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>><br>> Jeremy Malcolm<br>><br>> Senior Global Policy Analyst<br>><br>> Electronic Frontier Foundation<br>><br>> <a href="https://eff.org" target="_blank">https://eff.org</a><br>> <a ymailto="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" href="javascript:return">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br>><br>><br>><br>> Tel: <a href="tel:415.436.9333;161" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="24">415.436.9333 ext 161</a><br>><br>><br>><br>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on
the list:<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net." href="javascript:return">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.</a><br>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net." href="javascript:return">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.</a><br>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>><br>> Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>> The Internet Democracy Project<br>><br>> <a href="tel:+91%209899028053" x-apple-data-detectors="true"
x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors-result="29/0">+91 9899028053</a> | @anjakovacs<br>> <a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="29/1">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> ____________________________________________________________You received<br>> this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.To" href="javascript:return">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.To</a> unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>><br>><br>><br>> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive<br>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville,<br>> 2109, south <a
ymailto="mailto:africaanriette@apc.orgwww.apc.org" href="javascript:return">africaanriette@apc.orgwww.apc.org</a><br>><br>><br>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ____________________________________________________________<br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net." href="javascript:return">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.</a><br>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits____________________________________________________________" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits____________________________________________________________</a><br>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> <a ymailto="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net." href="javascript:return">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.</a><br>> To unsubscribe or change your
settings, visit:<br>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br><br><br><br></div><div></div></blockquote></div></html></td></tr></table>