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

[Adam Peake]

And... 

On May 1, 2014, at 9:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Hi Niels,
> 
> On 05/01/2014 08:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> Dear Carlos,
>> 
>> On 04/30/2014 03:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> 
>>> Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not
>>> included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand
>>> English, this is the paragraph on it:
>>> 
>>> "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a
>>> globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and
>>> accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique
>>> identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely
>>> end-to-end regardless of the lawful content."
>>> 
>> 
>> This definition allows for charging differentially by user, content,
>> site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of
>> communication.
> 
> It is not a definition -- nobody had said that so far. The recommendation for a principle provides the basis without which your dreams (which are also ours, or at least mine) would not come true. Do you think we would be able to delve into such details in an attempt to build a pluralist consensus document? And this is why we mentioned in the Roadmap the issue is complex and merits further dialogue and recommendations.
> 


We kept asking for specific text.  Something the we could work with in drafting.  Asked on this list and others, asked at the CS meeting on 22nd.  I think I even suggested: 

"Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral and open platform, free from discrimination, so as to encourage free expression,  the free flow of information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship."   

Not great, but something to argue for. (and it might have been a lever to keep the other creator text out of the document?)

We looked through the transcripts and all I remember seeing is general statements (we want to see NN mentioned, blah...  and those were balanced by others who said there was no place for net neutrality in the documents).  Sorry if I missed anything, but we needed text to work with, and needed support.  Where we got help, it worked: thanks particularly to Robin, Stephanie, Avri.  

Anyway.  A very enjoyable and rewarding process. There are a lot of positives in the documents.  

I'm very grateful to CS for asking me to join the EMC.  Thank you,

Adam





> In the Marco Civil, we also recognize the issue is not exhausted, this is why we agreed to insert the possibility of further regulation under the guidance of CGI.br and Anatel. This in itself was a major victory, as the transnational telcos (mostly European) who control the network market in Brazil did not want even the mention of CGI.br anywhere in the document.
> 
> Sometimes I think some progressive civil society groups have slipped towards Aristotelian logic -- either we get all or nothing -- forgetting all about political tactics. Unfortunate.
> 
> BTW, I would really like to see the list of orgs who signed (or agreed to) the statement. I find it hard to believe that 50-60 orgs were so naïve in grasping the relevance of the moment and the nature of the final document after participating in the event (I assume they all participated?).
> 
> And I thank again Stephanie Perrin for understanding that relevance and nature.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
>> 
>> So I am not sure it would fall under my definition of network neutrality.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Niels
>> 
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Acting Head of Digital
>> 
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org
>> 
>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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