[bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1
Mishi Choudhary
mishi at softwarefreedom.org
Tue Apr 29 15:24:06 EDT 2014
+1
On 04/27/2014 08:08 AM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
> Robin, thanks so much for doing this. I'd like to add a few
> additional observations:
>
> 1. Good thing CS met the day before to discuss perspectives and
> strategy. It seemed to build increased trust and respect, focus
> attention for presentation on key issues, and begin to get us organized.
>
> 2. We probably needed an additional day of meeetings to further refine
> strategy and how to maximize our influence .
>
> 3. Given the totally fluid nature and opaqueness of how a final
> document would come together, all stakeholder groups were nervous but
> we were most disadvantaged by not having a last minute "power push" to
> match government and corporate efforts.
>
> 4. We might have been able to do slightly better on wording but in the
> end, the leverage of key governments and corporate interests was
> always going to win the battle IF consensus was the goal. That's just
> a reminder of the ongoing political power deficit we always face and
> must continue the fight to overcome.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Date: 04/27/2014 12:13 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>,Adam Peake
> <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>,"<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,NCSG List <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1
>
>
> Thanks! I just posted a cleaned-up version of this earlier
> big-picture analysis to the web: http://tinyurl.com/ll9wnuq
>
>
> A Civil Society Perspective on NETmundial 2014 Final Outcome
> Document: A Remarkable Achievement, Despite Losses to Hollywood &
> Govts Over Specific Language on Most Controversial Issues
>
> A few high-level thoughts on the Netmundial meeting in Brazil this
> week and its final outcome document, adopted by its high level
> committee. Overall, there are some truly amazing and forward-looking
> principles supported in the "Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement"
> that we as civil society should proud of, and especially our civil
> society representatives who worked tirelessly for this achievement.
>
> Specifically, the Internet governance principles of human rights,
> democracy, equality, openness, transparency, accountability,
> decentralization, and the Internet as a global resource to be managed
> in the public interest are all supported in the final outcome
> document. These principles are all wonderful achievements for social
> justice and an important pivot point in the evolution of global
> governance principles and mechanisms.
>
> Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most
> contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless
> innovation, intermediary protections, net neutrality, and separation
> of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these controversial
> issues were mentioned at all in the statement, is a significant
> advancement (except for the ode to copyright). So on some key
> substantive policy issues, the statement reflects a remarkable
> positive achievement, despite a few critical losses on the specific
> wording where civil society got out-lobbied, out-muscled, &
> out-manuevered in the last minute, in less transparent and less
> organized processes. Civil society gained great experience from
> engaging in the process and learned a number of places were
> improvements can be made in future discussions and processes. Perhaps
> the losses on specific wording on the most contentious issues was the
> price to pay to obtain the larger and more numerous high-level
> principles supporting social justice goals and the positive
> development of the Internet.
>
> The simple fact the govts and business had to negotiate with civil
> society over final text language (and govts wait in line at the mic to
> speak) is another step-forward in Internet governance. Even with
> short comings, there was more transparency over the drafting and final
> high level committee’s weakening and adoption of the document than
> there is in other global governance regimes, where we can’t see the
> drafting at all, since a few of us could watch (those who could walk
> into the room) in NETmundial final high level committee and drafting
> sessions. There is demonstrated need for improved transparency in
> these critical decision-making moments in the process going forward.
> And the inability to anticipate the process also impeded civil
> society, who tends to be significantly under-represented in
> decision-making positions and among the insiders.
>
> I don’t want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see the
> really encouraging parts of this document, and that in many ways, this
> was a positive advancement in the evolution of Internet governance and
> Internet freedom.
>
> Without question, civil society was under-represented on panels, in
> committees, and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that -
> and we need to keep pushing on that critical point; this statement
> supports "equality", so we’ve got our hook for that key civil society
> goal in here too. The last minute (significantly weakening or)
> insertion of new language, for which there was no consensus or
> previous discussion, by powerful interests (generally Hollywood, Govt,
> ICANN) on the document’s most controversial issues was one of the
> process’ biggest break down points.
>
> Even with the process issues and painful losses on specific language
> on the most controversial issues, on balance, this document is a
> pretty good starting point for further discussions on Internet
> governance and its positive evolution.
>
> "Netmundial Multistakeholder Statement"
> <http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>
> On Apr 26, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
>> +1!
>> Stephanie P
>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> A few thoughts on the outcome doc and Netmundial generally, after
>>> the benefit of a plane ride to process the experience. Overall,
>>> there are some truly amazing principles supported in the Netmundial
>>> Multi-Stakeholder Statement that we as civil society should proud of
>>> and especially our representatives who got this achievement.
>>>
>>> The Internet governance principles of human rights, democracy,
>>> equality, openness, transparency, accountability, decentralized,
>>> Internet as global resource to be managed in the public interest are
>>> all supported in the final outcome document. These are all truly
>>> amazing achievements and an important pivot point in the evolution
>>> of the global governance ecosystem.
>>>
>>> Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most
>>> contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless
>>> innovation, intermediary liability, net neutrality, and separation
>>> of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these issues were
>>> mentioned in the governance document itself, is a significant
>>> advancement (except for the ode to copyright). So on some key
>>> substantive policy issues, the document reflects a remarkable
>>> achievement, despite a few critical losses where civil society got
>>> out-lobbied, out-muscled, & out-manuevered in the last minute behind
>>> less transparent and less organized processes on the specific wording.
>>>
>>> But the simple fact the govts and biz had to negotiate with civil
>>> society over key language (and wait in line to speak) is another
>>> rather remarkable step-forward. There was more transparency over
>>> the drafting and adoption of the document than there is in other
>>> global governance regimes where we can't see the drafting at all,
>>> since a few of us could watch. We now see the need for improved
>>> transparency in these key critical decision-making moments in this
>>> going forward. And the process frustrated and impeded civil
>>> society, who tends not be in current decision-making positions on
>>> these important process decisions.
>>>
>>> I don't want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see
>>> the really great parts of this document, and that in many ways, this
>>> was a very positive step forward in the evolution of the Internet
>>> governance and Internet freedom.
>>>
>>> Yes, civil society was under-represented on panels, in committees,
>>> and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - and we
>>> need to keep pushing on that point too; this doc supports
>>> "equality", so we've got our hook for that goal here too.
>>>
>>> On balance, this document is a pretty good starting point for
>>> further discussions on Internet governance and its positive evolution.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Stephanie and Adam for your clarifications.
>>>>
>>>> I still have the "impression" that the last session was not quite
>>>> as open as it could be.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, there was not announcement, or explanation, as to how the
>>>> final document would be dealt by HLMC in advance, or even on the
>>>> fly, for those who were in the Main Room.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it would be much better to have live streaming and scribed
>>>> texts online for those who were not in the small drafting room.
>>>>
>>>> I would say even in the small room, it was VERY difficult to figure
>>>> out what exactly they are discussing unless you have good hearing
>>>> ability and understanding of the English since they were not using
>>>> the microphone and sometimes audiences making some noise.
>>>> It was semi transparent in my view.
>>>>
>>>> I do not mean for criticism, but for lessons going forward.
>>>>
>>>> More than 10 years ago, we had WSIS prep meeting in Tokyo and we
>>>> insisted that Drafting session by governments plus civil society
>>>> and private sector be open to all who want to participate. It
>>>> worked well. We had big screen in front of all, and everyone could
>>>> speak up once chair allow, there were some distinction between the
>>>> official member of the drafting committee and others, but not much,
>>>> In the end the result of this informal drafting committee was sent
>>>> to the government only negotiation, which was open and transparent,
>>>> but no-government stakeholders including IGOs could have no say.
>>>> We asked government people to "honor" the works of this
>>>> multistakeholder draft document and in my view we got 85%, if not
>>>> 90%. (could not get good language for Human rights and Freedom of
>>>> Expression).
>>>>
>>>> Now, after more than 10 years, we have, as I wrote, better online
>>>> tool, much better working experience among CS members with other
>>>> stakeholders, better recognition on CS and MSH to advance our work.
>>>>
>>>> As Jeanette and Ian point out, we could have done better if we had
>>>> better prepared and also better prepared on the fly.
>>>>
>>>> But overall, I think civil society did a very good job, together
>>>> with Brazilian host, but also I like to mention the other
>>>> stakeholders, governments, business, tech and academic community
>>>> also deserve the recognition together,
>>>>
>>>> As we were discussing during the dinner right after the closure, we
>>>> could and should understand some government folks who really had
>>>> constraints under their mandate, therefore had to put their
>>>> reservations on the record. And even so, I think their behaviors
>>>> were not that disruptive, at the last stage, to honor Brazilian
>>>> host and also all of us engaged there.
>>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-04-27 2:30 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>>>> <mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>>:
>>>>
>>>> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was
>>>> a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for
>>>> the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just
>>>> that it wasn't thought of at the time.
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good
>>>> reason. They also realize they made an error in the last
>>>> minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause.
>>>> Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back
>>>> in. Will let the list know if it happens.
>>>> > Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should
>>>> remember that there was a remarkable production of good will
>>>> achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an
>>>> unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day…
>>>> > Stephanie Perrin
>>>> > Cheers stephanie
>>>> > On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org
>>>> <mailto:aizu at anr.org>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the
>>>> last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the
>>>> preceding process.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document
>>>> open to observers?
>>>> >> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future
>>>> similar event, to use the
>>>> >> online tool, I mean online Notepad.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors
>>>> to put the text on the screen,
>>>> >> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as
>>>> Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we
>>>> draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing
>>>> >> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those
>>>> in different rooms of the same
>>>> >> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the
>>>> work, that make it transparent.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Just a suggestion.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> izumi
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
>>>> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>:
>>>> >> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people
>>>> for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without
>>>> that we could not have worked together so well at the main event.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> From: Ian Peter
>>>> >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM
>>>> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ;
>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>> >> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into
>>>> travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that
>>>> during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil
>>>> society people really worked incredibly well together – far
>>>> more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a
>>>> group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a
>>>> high volume of exchange and consultation between people and
>>>> speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other
>>>> perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more
>>>> relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very
>>>> interesting – and i think promising – version of
>>>> multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was
>>>> full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made
>>>> and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I
>>>> have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons
>>>> for us, and is worth repeating.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement
>>>> said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say
>>>> personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to
>>>> some sections after the formal processes of drafting and
>>>> consolidating text had ended and passed through those
>>>> committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of
>>>> some governmental players being more equal than others. As one
>>>> colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism,
>>>> from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I
>>>> might say more about the detail of that.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was
>>>> fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of
>>>> people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on
>>>> various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege
>>>> to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our
>>>> behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will
>>>> miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say
>>>> job extremely well done.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities.
>>>> Great work everyone, really worthwhile event.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ian Peter
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>>> >> Japan
>>>> >> * * * * *
>>>> >> << Writing the Future of the History >>
>>>> >> www.anr.org
>>>> <http://www.anr.org/>
>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>>>
>>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>>>
>>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>>> Japan
>>>> * * * * *
>>>> << Writing the Future of the History >>
>>>> www.anr.org <http://www.anr.org/>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>
>>
>
--
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org
Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140429/d587b2b1/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list