[governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Thu Apr 17 06:22:29 EDT 2014 

On Apr 17, 2014, at 1:10 AM, parminder wrote:

> 
> On Wednesday 16 April 2014 09:16 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> what is the value of "public" in "based on open public standards"?  Does the word public add clarity?  Does it tell us something otherwise missing?
> 
> If it had no value, trust me, it wont have been removed...


Really :-)


> But to answer your question, I quote principle 10 of the 'Delhi Declaration for a Just and Equitable Internet' (enclosed)
> 
> "An open and decentralized Internet requires strict enforcement of open and public standards. Open standards allow fully interoperable implementation by anyone in any type of software, including Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). The trend towards privatisation of digital standards must be stemmed and measures must be introduced to ensure that standards are publicly owned, freely accessible and implementable. "
> 
> I hope this answers your question.. I can of course elaborate further. 
> 


Are FOSS standards public?  I am not an expert, but I thought they were licensed and those licenses often had conditions. This is not public in the way I understand you are using the word.  And apologies if I misunderstand. 

IETF asserts ownership of their intellectual property in their standards -- i.e. to my mind not "public", they are owned. However, they are open in that anyone can use them (use, and other characteristics of "open" that the paragraph refers to).

So I am trying to understand what you mean by "publicly owned". 

As I said, I am not expert, but I felt that "public" in "based on open public standards" was either superfluous (i.e. open is the key and conveyed what was essential) or caused confusion.  If I am wrong, then please make a comment on the document to say that public should be added and give the reason.  Elaboration not really necessary, everyone will read your comment on the document.

Adam



> No we did not write principle just to spite those who removed the 'public standard' part from the draft :). This principle was of course written much earlier.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Drafts are there for comment and revision, one thing comments on the leaked document made quite clear is the need to shorten the final document (and usually the same group that said the document is too long then added more words of their own...) 
>> 
>> The relevant paragraph as it stands in the document for comment is:
>> 
>> Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and practical experience and decisions made by open consensus, that allow for a unique, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation.
>> 
>> (25, in 
>> http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/
>> )
>> 
>> Is this weak? How can it be improved?  6 comments so far, are they helpful?
>> 
>> Adam (in my individual capacity) 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:25 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Agree with Parminder.
>>> 
>>> We need to comment on these omissions. Is best strategy for us to just all comment as individuals, or organisations, or to also try and do collaborative submissions?
>>> 
>>> But I would not blame big business Parminder.
>>> 
>>> Texts coming out of intergovernmental processes like the WSIS +10 are also problematic from a public-interest perspective.
>>> 
>>> Anriette
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 16/04/2014 12:08, parminder wrote:
>>> 
>>>> And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and public standards' which was in the initial draft......
>>>> 
>>>> I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome document that has been put for public comments..
>>>> 
>>>> Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not heard anyone present it.
>>>> 
>>>> This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much forward to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome document. 
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Carlos,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco Civil; it is not here in this document...
>>>>> 
>>>>> And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to convince us that net neutrality is still there...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places..
>>>>> 
>>>>> Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has been removed..
>>>>> 
>>>>> Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been removed...
>>>>> 
>>>>> The part on access for disabled has been weakened...
>>>>> 
>>>>> The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home has been greatly diluted...
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass through...
>>>>> 
>>>>> And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to big business or the US gov...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not accepted...
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the changes in the document clearly show. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about!
>>>>> 
>>>>> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder....
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail,
>>>>>> please re-read.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out
>>>>>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad
>>>>>>> to help Nnenna?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin <
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>>>>>>> <mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>>> MF
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Congrats Nnenna!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that
>>>>>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups,
>>>>>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society
>>>>>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit
>>>>>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and
>>>>>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle,
>>>>>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of
>>>>>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet
>>>>>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public
>>>>>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this
>>>>>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only
>>>>>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust,
>>>>>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for
>>>>>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to
>>>>>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only
>>>>>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it
>>>>>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that
>>>>>>>>> are not simply cosmetic.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> + 1
>>>>>>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice!
>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* Governance 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>  ;
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society
>>>>>>>>>>> major issues
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo,
>>>>>>>>>>> inviting me
>>>>>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack
>>>>>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society
>>>>>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group".
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas
>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major
>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>> will be overlooked.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a
>>>>>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> All for now
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Nnenna
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> www.apc.org
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>>>>>>>> south africa
>>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Dr Marianne Franklin
>>>>>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics
>>>>>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
>>>>>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London)
>>>>>>>> Department of Media & Communications
>>>>>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>>>>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> @GloComm
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/GloComm
>>>>>>>> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
>>>>>>>> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> @netrights
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen 
>>> 
>>> anriette at apc.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> 
>>> 
>>> www.apc.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 
> <Delhi Declaration.pdf>____________________________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Bestbits mailing list