<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Optima; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Optima; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Peter,</span></span></span></span></span></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I think it would be appropriate to gently refrain subscribers from falling into personal attack, or in abusively labeling others' opinion or view, discriminating any one for its citizenship, religion... Calling to refrain might not lead to more attack, but maybe cool down minds. At least, it is worth the try. As many have said, to start with Deirdre, the pathway back to trust will come from courtesy and respect of the one another, and from acceptance of diversity of views. In any democratic system, a vote ends the fight and everyone has to accept the result. Within these different lists, we all know that too much time is wasted in "process regarding nominations". This cannot be a surprise, because most of the time there is no clear cut principle to "end" the debate. A few +1, the "temperature of the room", the "wet finger", all of that does not help and are more or less pre- democratic (not yet democratic). When it comes to code, rough consensus can work because you have something that everyone can see working "better" than the other suggested technical options. When it comes to ethics or politics, no one can really say if the decision drives into something that "work". Every time such processes are conducted, they result in an addition of distrust. And because the debate here is not about technical norms, it is hard to imagine that pre-democratic processes can lead to a "democratic multistakeholder" as called by the Net Mundial conclusion in Sao Paulo, anytime soon. But we can still try of course. If respect is part of the story that could help.</div><div><br></div><div>JC</div>
<br><div><div>Le 22 nov. 2014 à 01:16, Ian Peter a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi Parminder,<br><br>I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought some of Jeremys comments were over the top too.<br><br>If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute depression as a result.<br><br>I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or not trying to) convey.<br><br>Ian<br><br>-----Original Message----- From: <a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a><br>Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM<br>To: Ian Peter<br>Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; Anriette Esterhuysen ; Governance ; Best Bits<br>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Thanks Nnenna.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion.<br></blockquote><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><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">already been silenced on this issue.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">respect differences of opinion.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and create a more just worldâ€. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">social justice.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Ian Peter<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: Nnenna Nwakanma<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: michael gurstein<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Initiative - RFC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">abandoning the pursuit of social justice?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Mandela. And it is him who said:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">enemy. Then he becomes your partner."<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I will rest my case for now<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Nnenna<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">justice.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> M<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> From: <a href="mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">[mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Esterhuysen<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Cc: Governance; Best Bits<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">NETmundial Initiative - RFC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Dear all<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">IG, so apologies for not participating.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a try.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">legitimate and clear.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">white'.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">have actually been addressed.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">mechanisms.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">processes and mechanisms.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">following:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - a limited timeframe<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">continue or not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">we can always withdraw.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">internet governance.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Anriette<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Dear all,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">some light on why their government has decided to support this<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">already given themselves some fixed seats.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">structure as a whole, I am not so certain)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">forward.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Thanks and best,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Anja<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <<a href="mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com">nnenna75@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Society members here.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">withdrawn if XYZ is not met.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">dont think we should miss out.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">interested in the NMI.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">participate but we cannot ask others not to.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">participate.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> All for now<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Nnenna<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Journal <<a href="mailto:jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net">jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Jeremy,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Thanks for your email.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">politics.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and impact.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">No, let's stay on what is at stake such as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">refused to discuss mass surveillance?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and growing?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">debate for CS.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">important than IANA for example?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">corps. They also create more "values".<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">someone today.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the current mandarins to take more progressive steps.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">psychotics or lunatics.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the debate. That would be fair.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> JC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Journal <<a href="mailto:jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net">jc.nothias@theglobaljournal.net</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">about this at <a href="http://igfwatch.org">igfwatch.org</a>, because JNC’s pathologies are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">off-topic for this list.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">listen to non JNC members:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the WIB Initiative)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">quarters to create a "UN Security Councilâ€<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Chehadé: ...<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> None of these statements support the characterisation of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">global [Internet] governanceâ€.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">reserves by different participants.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">certainly have<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(<a href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles">http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles</a>).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">endorsement of the Initiative.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">flight a few hours later. But I write this brief response just<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you -<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I’m not. Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">questions rather than me monopolising the conversation.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> --<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Jeremy Malcolm<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Senior Global Policy Analyst<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Electronic Frontier Foundation<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> ____________________________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> ____________________________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> --<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> Dr. Anja Kovacs<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> The Internet Democracy Project<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">____________________________________________________________You received<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this message as a subscriber on the list:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.To">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net.To</a> unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">2109, south <a href="mailto:africaanriette@apc.orgwww.apc.org">africaanriette@apc.orgwww.apc.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">____________________________________________________________<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits____________________________________________________________">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits____________________________________________________________</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>