<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 24 November 2014 10:07 AM,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f3880beed2d545bf97659428f82865c1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This
is the kind of drivel that is more likely to make people
support NMI than oppose it. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Milton<br>
<br>
First of all, thanks for being so bothered about people supporting
NMI. We agree on this. But only this far.<br>
<br>
Your reasons for advocating that civil society as a group should not
support NMI seems to relate to its single, hegemonic nature and that
the process is neither clear, nor equal or inclusive.<br>
<br>
JNC's primary reasons from staying away are different, which of
course you know (which is perhaps why you censored the JNC statement
on NMI from your blog :), which sure is your editorial freedom). Our
reasons focus on the the idea of social justice and, in
the negative, neoliberalism, which in our view are respectively
compromised and advanced in partnering with the WEF in developing a
global governance platform. We also believe that the process issues
about the WEF-ICANN's NMI are structurally related to substantive
issues, and thus cannot be improved just because some civil society
people or groups lean on 'them' to do it. <br>
<br>
You of course do not agree with these concerns. You have said on the
IGC list that you do not think that 'social justice' means anything
at all. We know that this term is mainstream for much of global
civil society, and even including foundations like the Ford
Foundation, which incidentally has been funding you (or any rate was
at the time you mentioned your disbelief in the very idea of social
justice).. <br>
<br>
Further you have said recently in your blog that it is time we
"faced the fact that the internet is entirely a product of
neoliberal policies". So you do support neoliberal policies.
Incidentally, mainstream global civil society does not. World Social
Forum was formed both in direct opposition to neoliberal policies
being pursued the world-over, and to its most definitive symbol, the
World Economic Forum. <br>
<br>
We therefore can see that you do not have objections to the expected
substantive thrusts of an WEF led NMI. We would not have been
surprised if you had supported the WEF dominated NMI, and if you
have not, we can understand that this is due to some peripheral
reasons, as you make clear in an subsequent email to Carlos.<br>
<br>
What surprises and pains us however is that part of civil society,
including in Brazil, which would normally be seen talking about
social justice and against neoliberal policies. We are surprised
that many elements of this civil society can actually argue that
even with WEF centrally there, an NMI can lead to outcomes for
social justice and against neoliberalisation of everything, which is
what the WEF is wedded to. This despite having shown direct quotes
to these people from WEF documents that they have a clear plan for
the IG space, as a lead element for neoliberalisation of governance
of other spaces. <br>
<br>
The plan centrally includes non-democratic models of governance,
where the elites, with some selective cooptations govern the world.
And therefore 'bad process' is tied to the substantive WEF thinking.
And if they ever make some adjustments to this 'bad process' is will
only be for the sake of temporarily co-opting some important
constituencies, as they may be trying to do now. That some civil
society people here think that they can actually change the WEF from
its known and entreched ways of thinking (which are in fact its<em>
raison d'être</em> ) is almost funny. <br>
<br>
Civil society partnering with the WEF on a global governance
initiative is not the civil society we knew. It is something new.
But new can be interesting. Lets see where it leads us..<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f3880beed2d545bf97659428f82865c1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Another
clarification with regard to Internet governance is needed
for the period in which Lula presided Brazil, there was a
Brazilian multilateral diplomatic position, which did not
accept the Icann <i>multistakeholdism</i>.<span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Yes, they were locked in the mentality of the past. They
did not understand the Internet and the more distributed
governance models emerging globally.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">It must
be said that President Dilma Rousseffi, the opening of the
68th General Assembly of the United Nations on 24
September 2013, held in the Brazilian diplomatic tradition
one multilateralist discourse, which advocated a
democratic governance, multilateral and open. What <span
style="color:#1F497D"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
“multilateral” meaning, “one country one vote,” which is
of course extremely undemocratic. Because it means not
only that all the diversity within each nation-state is
unrepresented, but also that undemocratic states have as
much voting power as democratic ones. No thank you!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">happened
was a maneuver performed by the CGI-Br members to break
the diplomatic tradition of Brazil and make a meeting
coordinated by ICANN and I * that began to adopt <i>multistakeholdist</i>
ideology in the Sao Paulo meeting, the NetMundial. <span
style="color:#1F497D"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Yes, Brazil’s government seemed to (wisely) move toward
acceptance of a multi-stakeholder approach. To dismiss
this as a “maneuver” by CGI.br (I guess they are not
true Brazilians) seems to be a denial of reality. Or are
you asserting that President Rousseff walked into the
meeting completely ignorant of what was going on? But
OK, duly noted: Mr. Pires joins Russia and Cuba in
dissent against the Netmundial meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">The
meeting failed when not discussed the policies to fight
the mass surveillance carried out by the US, when not
produced a single line on the asymmetric model for the
roots server system, when not opted to set a clear policy
favorable to net neutrality.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
I was there, and recall many discussions of mass
surveillance. And the attacks on the unilateral approach
to the DNS were mooted by the NTIA announcement that
they would end it. There were no discussions of how to
end it, but if you were paying attention there were many
discussions of what should replace it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">To
overcome the <i>multistakeholdist</i> ideology of
NetMundial Iniciative, civil society organizations (as
JNC), social movements in networks and public and private
actors need to engage in fights and discussions to build a
new model of IG, which guarantee: a) a worldwide
organization for Internet, that really represents the
interests of all nation states <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Wonderful. So it is not the people we want to represent,
or even Internet users and suppliers, but
“nation-states?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">and to
ensure net neutrality and respect the Internet as a common
good; b) a worldwide Internet statement that has as
principle the protection of privacy, freedom of expression
and to promote free and universal access to the Internet
and free software; c) a court with international <span
style="color:#1F497D"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
…because, as we know, nation-states are so devoted to
freedom of expression, privacy and free software! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>