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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is
great. However I think we should remember that civil society without
support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is
just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been
such a dream if it did not receive support from the host.

So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten"
the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should
not lean towards being  independent but rather towards collaborative
independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy.

Thanks
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" <
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> 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<http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-next-best-stage-for-the-future-of-internet-governance-is-democracy/305> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140501/37b88f8c/attachment.htm>