[bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement

Thu May 1 08:29:43 EDT 2014

I was not that comfortable while some CS members got quite angry and
discussing walk out or sending strong statement against the final MSH
statement.
But I did not take much action myself.

I was quite relieved to hear the big applause just after Adam and Jeanette
read there portions. Yes, some CS members were not standing up, but still I
could see some other
CS members standing and applauding, including myself.

Here are two vide clips I took and shared.

First one, right after Jeanette read, you could see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkRtgJjtOQQ

This shows the second instance after the Chair asked the floor to adopt
with acclamation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4TD1_3UUx4

Final list of registered participants who agreed to put their names were
published here:
http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/04/20/netmundial-announces-list-of-registered-participants/

CS composes more than 30%.
Of course these are only those who agreed to publish their names and since
the total number of participants exceeded 1200, it is less than half.

Government    91      19.9%
CS                145      31.7%
Business          71     15.5%
Academia         73     16.0%
TC                   77     16.8%
Total      457

So while 30 to 50 or 60 people who did not stand and support the MSH
statement are
not small, it did not represent the majority of CS either.

In the past, at IGF or its MAG meeting in particular, some CS members were
reporting on the fly, and many CS members were using Skype chat to
communicate in real time.

This time, at least I have not seen such effort.

Other than the Bestbits meeting as pre-event, I have not heard much CS
meetings
inside NETmundial.

This means CS by and large did not have well coordinating mechanism, and
thus
could not "lobby" that effectively.

Yet, the trusted CS members both at EMC and HLMC and those in the drafting
sessions did the great job of pushing most of CS agenda, especially on
human rights and the wording
of MSH, into the final document. Not an easy job under that circumstances.
I thank you again.

This is my personal view only.

izumi

2014-05-01 19:52 GMT+09:00 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>:

> Hi Ian,
>
> the only cs people I could see against the light directed towards the
> stage during the closing ceremony where those who didn't get up when most
> most people in the room had risen and applauded process and/or outcome.
>
> Less than 30 minutes before the closing ceremony, both statement and
> process where about to collapse due to a few governments who weren't
> willing to support the principle section of the outcome document. These
> governments hadn't been part of the editing process and probably hadn't
> monitored it either. They looked at the changes being made to the draft
> document some hours before and simply said no to some of what they saw on
> the screen, or wanted text included that they didn't see on that screen. In
> this situation it occurred to me how very risky the process was that we had
> sketched out earlier that week. Board and committees simply hoped that the
> outcome would be legitimate and acceptable to the majority of attendees.
>
> While more and more government reps expressed their discont and the
> meeting was running over time, I tried to imagine what a failure of
> netmundial would mean for the future evolution of the multistakeholder
> process. For years to come, I thought, we would be stuck with the IG truism
> that one can have either multistakeholder and chairman reports or more
> specific outcomes BUT NOT BOTH. We would have faced an agonizing stalemate
> for a long time despite all the goodwill and efforts to push this fragile
> baby forward. If we had ended with yet another chairman's report,
> netmundial would have be interpreted by many as a confirmation of the
> limits of multistakeholder processes.
>
> I was so relieved when we achieved a compromise and prevented the process
> from failing! And this is why I found it pretty hard to listen to the cs
> statement and watch you all sitting their with your arms folded and not
> even a little smile on your faces.
> The only person who sensed the split between cs in the audience and cs on
> the stage was Anja. After some hesitation she got up. I felt like hugging
> her, and I wholeheartedly did after the closure.
>
> I guess what I want to say is that it a bit of expectation management
> among civil society wouldn't hurt. This includes putting outcomes such as
> the Sao Paulo statement into perspective while they are negotiated. Only a
> few years ago we were unable to get consensus for IGF main sessions
> focussing on human rights. Plus, is is still open if we will ever move
> beyond a chair man's report at the IGF. Recent reflections by cs people on
> netmundial move into this direction.
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 30.04.14 21:44, schrieb Ian Peter:
>
>  The Niels statement was drawn up quickly by a group of about 30 of us
>> sitting in the CS quarters of the conference hall after the changed text
>> was leaked showing the last minute changes after the text left the two
>> drafting committees.
>>
>> Some of us would have gone further. Some were considering a walk out.
>> The text was probably indicative of a more balanced approach given the
>> mood at the time.
>>
>> With a bit of distance from the disappointment at those changes, perhaps
>> many feel differently. But it was an honest attempt to capture the mood
>> at the time and I am personally glad civil society said something rather
>> than nothing.
>>
>> But with a bit of distance from the event perhaps many of us have other
>> thoughts.
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 PM
>> To: Jeremy Malcolm
>> Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt &lt
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014
>> outcome text open for endorsement
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>  I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the
>> impression of civil society broadly.  Who asked for the opportunity to
>> speak and who did they say they represented?
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of
>>>> positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole
>>>> process.  I can’t support this statement
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Puddephatt
>>>> Global Partners Digital
>>>> Andrew at gp-digital.org
>>>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597
>>>> Tel office   +44 (0)207 549 0350
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
>>>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
>>>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44
>>>> To: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome
>>>> text open for endorsement
>>>>
>>>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text
>>>> was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society
>>>> representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever
>>>> from Article 19.  If you are in agreement, please endorse and share:
>>>>
>>>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response
>>>>
>>>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil
>>>> society response later.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>>>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140501/88cf20af/attachment.htm>