<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT.<br><br></div>I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI.<br></div><br></div>Nnenna<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Dear David Cake,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><br></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au" target="_blank">dave@difference.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the process, and having them run the process by their own rules. <div><br></div><div>I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes often represent small sectors of the commercial world with very strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos and copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is not the same as having sympathy for their policy positions and actions, simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to battle covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in which CS has no voice. </div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome to keep doing those things, but such processes should not be considered legitimate means of producing multi-stakeholder transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly started with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, such as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted. </div></div></blockquote></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of managing their business forum), but as a participant of the NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its own style. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each stakeholder group would balance the other groups. If the initial NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so well thought of - in its early stages. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">As Harmut Glaser says, "<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">It is up for the </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and useful </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">for the advancement of IG in full respects of the principles enshrined </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(34,34,34)">in the NETmundial declaration.</span><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">" </div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">Sivasubramanian M</div></div> </font></span></div><div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. </div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>David</div></font></span><div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M <<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Dear Guru,</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">(You (Guru) said: </div>WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in authorised/unauthorised/</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial">illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary programme of global surveillance</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">If such as strong generalization of big business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only stakeholder group. </font></div></div><div><div style="color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div></div><div><div style="color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div style="display:inline">Seriously, i</div><div style="display:inline">f WSIS had committed to build a "</div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society<div style="color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? </div></span><br></font></div></div><div><div style="color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div></div><div><div style="color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative ways. </font></div></div><div><div style="color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div></div><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">. </div></font></span><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"></div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. <div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w</div></span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">e could </span><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline">eventually </div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups. </span><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline"></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy" target="_blank">Sivasubramanian M</a></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Guru@itforchange.net" target="_blank">Guru@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Mawaki<br>
<br>
I would like to cite from two sources:<br>
<br>
A. WSIS Declaration of Principles -
<a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html" target="_blank">http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html</a> (the very
first two clauses)<br>
<br>
1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled
in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World
Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and
commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and
development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create,
access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling
individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential
in promoting their sustainable development and improving their
quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the
Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.<br>
2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and
communication technology to promote the development goals of the
Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty
and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of
gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child
mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS,
malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability;
and development of global partnerships for development for the
attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also
reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable
development and agreed development goals, as contained in the
Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the
Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations
Summits.<br>
<br>
I now will cite from the WEF site -
<a href="http://www.weforum.org/our-members" target="_blank">http://www.weforum.org/our-members</a><br>
<br>
Begin<br>
Our Members<br>
The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members
comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises
usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises
rank among the top companies within their industry and play a
leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region.
Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry
Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their
engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The
Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities.<br>
End<br>
<br>
It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have
seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of
Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart
from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in
authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated
work also is structuring our participation in the information
society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand
how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on
extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in
their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation <br>
<br>
Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only
legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should 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 ECOSOC<br>
<a href="http://www.itforchange.net/" target="_blank">www.ITforChange.Net</a>| Cell:<a href="tel:91%209845437730" value="+919845437730" target="_blank">91 9845437730</a> | Tel:<a href="tel:91%2080%2026654134" value="+918026654134" target="_blank">91 80 26654134</a>,
26536890<br>
<a href="http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum" target="_blank">http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum</a><div><div><br>
<br>
On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space:pre-wrap">> 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>
> </span><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<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>
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><br></div></div>
____________________________________________________________<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>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></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
<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><br></div>