[bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1

Thu May 1 08:26:14 EDT 2014

I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--...
1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now.
2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed?
3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division.  from that when we read comments from all over
4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning.
5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline?
6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective
7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed.
8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved.
9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times.

Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today.

If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing.

Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet -  so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. 

In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)?

A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now.

JC

Post-scriptum:
John,
Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance?

JC

Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit :

> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 
>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. 
> 
> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models 
> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a 
> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful...
> 
> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such
> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to 
> maintain any momentum.  If you had said 2015 (and succeeding 
> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in 
> agreement.  It would seem to me that indicating today the plan
> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out 
> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform 
> that we've just very successfully created.
> 
> /John
> 
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140501/fd5a8685/attachment.htm>