[bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN

Carolina carolina.rossini at gmail.com
Wed Sep 25 12:57:51 EDT 2013 

I agree. I talked to friends in the gov and it seems that she used multilateral meaning multistakeholder 
But I also agree this needs to be clarified in an official note and maybe even ask a official note back from Itamaraty
But this can also be a shot on our own foot if comes back as actual "multilateral"... In which case maybe we should not call attention to it?
I would think that us Brazilians in the list need to talk with folks in the gov to clarify all that before a very loud action....
Anyway, just trying to brainstorm what is better.
I also would prefer up point the very positive parts of her speech which are VERY helpful for the Marco Civil discussion
I am afraid to have the good distracted by the bad.... 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:02 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Rousseff sees "multilateral" as "among nations", not "among
> governments". But I do understand the term in the international
> diplomatic scene takes a meaning opposed to what civil society defends
> and each government has its own particular interpretation -- BTW, as do
> different civil society "tribes".
> 
> My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of
> the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful
> window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that
> "12-letter word" in her statement.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 09/25/2013 12:37 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> I agree with Anne that the speech was clever in many ways, but am also a
>> little worried about how the continuous references to multilateralism will
>> be read in our own domestic context, where the importance of these
>> statements from a Brazilian perspective is not necessarily fully
>> appreciated or understood in its nuances. The whole debate about whether a
>> reformed Internet governance should take a multilateral or multistakeholder
>> route *is* gaining momentum at the moment, and if we as international civil
>> society are going to make a comment on the Brazilian president's speech, I
>> do think we have to comment on her remarks on this issue as well - or our
>> own stance on the question of multistakeholderism might be misunderstood in
>> our own countries.
>> 
>> Isn't there a way in which we can do so without undermining the Brazilian
>> national agenda (or even better, by supporting that agenda)? If so, I'll be
>> very happy to support a letter but if this is not noted at all, it might be
>> difficult for us to do so, as silence could be read as implicit approval.
>> 
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 25 September 2013 20:33, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter could
>>> help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's advisors in
>>> the near future to better understand her position and lobby on the best
>>> ways for Brazil to show international leadership in this area.
>>> 
>>> As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other
>>> global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has often
>>> managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by positioning itself
>>> very strategically as a bridge-builder between "South" and "North" blocs
>>> (to caricature them very crudely).  Reading her speech, and the clever way
>>> it managed to pick up on key demands and buzzwords from both sides of the
>>> internet governance divide, I did wonder whether Brazil is once again
>>> angling to set itself up as the player that can broker pragmatic
>>> compromises between competing ideologies. If so, I think that's probably
>>> good news, especially given that the PT in power has usually been
>>> relatively open to working with civil society.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Anne
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear all
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society commending
>>>> her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes for the Marco
>>>> Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder question.
>>>> 
>>>> Anriette
>>>> 
>>>> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the need
>>>> to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in what
>>>> our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say I
>>>> fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One step at the time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
>>>>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for
>>>>> our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil.
>>>>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions
>>>>> from the draft bill.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of
>>>>> communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet
>>>>> public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word
>>>>> "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major
>>>>> achievement.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new.
>>>>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions
>>>>> at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For instance, in our
>>>>> previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our
>>>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and
>>>>> positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct
>>>>> explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we
>>>>> have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the
>>>>> President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the
>>>>> UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council
>>>>> of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to
>>>>> incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really
>>>>> impressed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> all the best
>>>>> 
>>>>> joana
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>> @joana_varon
>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear people,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be
>>>>>> far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let
>>>>>> us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room
>>>>>> to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first
>>>>>> thing she told us was she agreed with them.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result
>>>>>> of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the
>>>>>> one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although
>>>>>> recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might
>>>>>> suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and
>>>>>> so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big
>>>>>> challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos
>>>>>> and big media have enormous power.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>>>>>> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be
>>>>>>> exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>> governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective
>>>>>>> creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the
>>>>>> private
>>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that
>>>>>> Internet
>>>>>>> governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines
>>>>>> Internet
>>>>>>> governance as something "with the participation of the various
>>>>>> sectors of
>>>>>>> society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with
>>>>>>> stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private
>>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can you see my point?
>>>>>>> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>>>>>>>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
>>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>>>>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>>>>>>> Open Technology Institute
>>>>>>>> *New America Foundation*
>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389>
>>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>>>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>>> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>>> south africa
>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Anne Jellema
>>> Chief Executive Officer
>>> Cape Town, RSA
>>> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
>>> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
>>> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
>>> Skype anne.jellema
>>> @afjellema
>>> 
>>> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
>>> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>> 
>> 
>>

More information about the Bestbits mailing list