<p>WEF can not dominate NMI with their styles so let get involve.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 24, 2014 10:23 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <<a href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu">jeanette@wzb.eu</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I completely agree with Lee's conclusions. Let's put aside our underdog attitude for a moment and think about projects that we could advance with the help of this new platform.<br>
Here at #Afrisig2014, we have discussed some ideas about evolving the summer school model, developing a more general curriculum, put together textbooks and stuff like that.<br>
<br>
(For clarification, I am not applying for a seat on any NMI council, and my personal career does not benefit from supporting new IG platforms either.)<br>
<br>
jeanette<br>
<br>
Am 24.11.14 05:36, schrieb Lee W McKnight:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I am MORE in favor IGC engaging with NMI because:<br>
<br>
1.<br>
the rationale and explanations from Carlos Afonso and <a href="http://cgi.br" target="_blank">cgi.br</a><br>
colleagues are clear and sensible; those who helped pull off<br>
NetMundial have earned IGC’s support<br>
2.<br>
The views of the I-orgs, who were against IGF before they were for<br>
it (cough cough), are also clear but less convincing, seeing as<br>
those orgs do not claim to be the appropriate venues themselves to<br>
address the range of issues likely to be (in my opinion) brought to<br>
NMI, and offer no alternative. Should NMI prove to be of some merit,<br>
no doubt the I orgs will engage at a later date.<br>
3.<br>
Likewise, the more JNC has explained its views, the less weight they<br>
hold, seeing as they appear focused on a specifically anti-US big<br>
(internet) business animus , completely neglecting to note the new<br>
giants on the block such as Alibaba's record-setting IPO which has<br>
resulted in a firm that has a market cap far exceeding the Amazon<br>
boogeyman, as well as Walmart's. (not that there is anything wrong<br>
with Alibaba, but obsessively picking on the little guy/small(er)<br>
business - Amazon ; ) - seems to be misplaced and unhelpful to<br>
multistakeholder dialog and governance. (OK to be fair JNC is in<br>
good company picking on Amazon, since like JNC, Wall Street is also<br>
giving Amazon a hard time of late, as are European publishers<br>
Hachette and Springer who are also managing to push back against<br>
Amazon themselves. Anyway, this anti-Amazon obsession of some is but<br>
a sideshow/distraction to consideration of broader Internet<br>
governance issues and should therefore carry limited weight in<br>
IGC's own considerations, although of course everyone is free to<br>
voice whatever views they wish, whether of Amazon or something more<br>
relevant to the issues at hand.<br>
4.<br>
Last but not least, the historical triumph of - <a href="http://cgi.br" target="_blank">cgi.br</a> and ICANN<br>
coopting WEF - to facilitate industry engagement in broader IG<br>
policy issues discussions and implementations should be recognized<br>
for what it is, and not mistaken for a sign of the failure but<br>
rather is a mark of success/the mainstreaming of Internet<br>
governance, as matters of truly global Import and requiring truly<br>
global solutions.<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent from Windows Mail<br>
<br>
*From:* Nnenna Nwakanma <mailto:<a href="mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com" target="_blank">nnenna75@gmail.com</a>><br>
*Sent:* Sunday, November 23, 2014 10:42 PM<br>
*To:* <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><u></u>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.<u></u>igcaucus.org</a>><br>
<br>
It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT.<br>
<br>
I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI.<br>
<br>
Nnenna<br>
<br>
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear David Cake,<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake <<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au" target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au" target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a><u></u>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the<br>
process, and having them run the process by their own rules.<br>
<br>
I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory,<br>
multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to<br>
eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial<br>
sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes<br>
often represent small sectors of the commercial world with very<br>
strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos and<br>
copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader<br>
commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in<br>
IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And<br>
note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is not the<br>
same as having sympathy for their policy positions and actions,<br>
simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open,<br>
transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to battle<br>
covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in<br>
which CS has no voice.<br>
<br>
But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open<br>
multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not<br>
open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial<br>
led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome<br>
to keep doing those things, but such processes should not be<br>
considered legitimate means of producing multi-stakeholder<br>
transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly started<br>
with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes,<br>
such as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does<br>
not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that<br>
has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may<br>
not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of<br>
managing their business forum), but as a participant of the<br>
NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its<br>
own style.<br>
<br>
2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each<br>
stakeholder group would balance the other groups. If the initial<br>
NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so<br>
well thought of - in its early stages.<br>
<br>
As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI<br>
into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG<br>
in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial<br>
declaration.<br>
"<br>
<br>
Sivasubramanian M<br>
<br>
<br>
So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in<br>
some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M<br>
<<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear Guru,<br>
<br>
(You (Guru) said: <br>
WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen<br>
the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS<br>
Declaration of Principles from the activities of<br>
transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising<br>
our data for their commercial gains in<br>
authorised/unauthorised/<u></u>illegitimate/illegal ways, their<br>
unregulated work also is structuring our participation<br>
in the information society in many unhealthy ways.<br>
Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are<br>
in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary<br>
programme of global surveillance<br>
<br>
<br>
If such as strong generalization of big business is to be<br>
accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to<br>
such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS<br>
declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder<br>
group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be<br>
a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil<br>
Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to<br>
Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude<br>
Government from Internet Governance, and declare that<br>
Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single<br>
stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only<br>
stakeholder group.<br>
<br>
Seriously, i<br>
f WSIS had committed to build a "<br>
people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented<br>
Information Society<br>
", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such<br>
a position on Big Business? <br>
<br>
<br>
And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this<br>
world has happened because of enterprise, much more because<br>
of business than because of Government. Granted, some of<br>
the information technology big businesses have worked with<br>
Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do<br>
not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a<br>
desire for profit and how much of it was forced by<br>
arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and<br>
imaginative ways.<br>
<br>
Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the<br>
moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF<br>
.<br>
<br>
WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to<br>
a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's<br>
attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing<br>
influence within the corporate world, because many of these<br>
Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves.<br>
Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in<br>
unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the<br>
moment, and w<br>
e could<br>
eventually <br>
work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.<br>
<br>
<br>
Sivasubramanian M<br>
<<a href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/<u></u>sivasubramanian.muthusamy</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru <<a href="mailto:Guru@itforchange.net" target="_blank">Guru@itforchange.net</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Guru@itforchange.net" target="_blank">Guru@itforchange.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear Mawaki<br>
<br>
I would like to cite from two sources:<br>
<br>
A. WSIS Declaration of Principles -<br>
<a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html" target="_blank">http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/<u></u>geneva/official/dop.html</a><br>
(the very first two clauses)<br>
<br>
1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*,<br>
*assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the<br>
first phase of the World Summit on the Information<br>
Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to<br>
build a people-centred, inclusive and<br>
development-oriented Information Society, where everyone<br>
can create, access, utilize and share information and<br>
knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples<br>
to achieve their full potential in promoting their<br>
sustainable development and improving their quality of<br>
life, premised on the purposes and principles of the<br>
Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and<br>
upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.<br>
2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of<br>
information and communication technology to promote the<br>
development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely<br>
the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger;<br>
achievement of universal primary education; promotion of<br>
gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of<br>
child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to<br>
combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring<br>
environmental sustainability; and development of global<br>
partnerships for development for the attainment of a<br>
more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also<br>
reiterate our commitment to the achievement of<br>
sustainable development and agreed development goals, as<br>
contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of<br>
Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other<br>
outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits.<br>
<br>
I now will cite from the WEF site -<br>
<a href="http://www.weforum.org/our-members" target="_blank">http://www.weforum.org/our-<u></u>members</a><br>
<br>
Begin<br>
Our Members<br>
The World Economic Forum is a membership organization.<br>
Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top<br>
corporations, global enterprises usually with more than<br>
US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among<br>
the top companies within their industry and play a<br>
leading role in shaping the future of their industry and<br>
region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s<br>
Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which<br>
are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s<br>
events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are<br>
at the heart of all our activities.<br>
End<br>
<br>
It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big<br>
businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the<br>
ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the<br>
activities of transnational corporations. Apart from<br>
using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in<br>
authorised/unauthorised/<u></u>illegitimate/illegal ways, their<br>
unregulated work also is structuring our participation<br>
in the information society in many unhealthy ways.<br>
Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are<br>
in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary<br>
programme of global surveillance, which helps them in<br>
their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation<br>
<br>
Participating in forums anchored in such a space will<br>
only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should<br>
not participate in the NMI.<br>
<br>
thanks and regards<br>
Guru<br>
<br>
Gurumurthy Kasinathan<br>
Director, IT for Change<br>
In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations<br>
ECOSOC<br>
<a href="http://www.ITforChange.Net" target="_blank">www.ITforChange.Net</a> <<a href="http://www.itforchange.net/" target="_blank">http://www.itforchange.net/</a>>|<br>
Cell:91 9845437730 <tel:91%209845437730> | Tel:91 80<br>
26654134 <tel:91%2080%2026654134>, 26536890<br>
<a href="http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum" target="_blank">http://karnatakaeducation.org.<u></u>in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_<u></u>Teacher_Forum</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
> Dear All,<br>
><br>
> You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat<br>
> the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before<br>
> hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with<br>
> deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI<br>
> Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are<br>
> willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI<br>
> Coordination Council.<br>
><br>
> Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG<br>
> member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or<br>
> not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been<br>
> having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the<br>
> membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be<br>
> able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about<br>
> our participation in the NMI process.<br>
><br>
> So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief.<br>
> State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if<br>
> you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you<br>
> could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we<br>
> just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I<br>
> mean.)<br>
><br>
> Thank you for your understanding. Best regards.<br>
><br>
> Mawaki<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>______________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.<u></u>igcaucus.org</a>><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/<u></u>unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/<u></u>info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email:<br>
<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/<u></u>translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>______________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.<u></u>igcaucus.org</a>><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/<u></u>unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/<u></u>info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/<u></u>translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>______________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.<u></u>igcaucus.org</a>><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/<u></u>unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/<u></u>info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/<u></u>translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>