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

Thu May 1 10:19:21 EDT 2014

Dear all

Some responses to Jeanette below.

On 01/05/2014 12:52, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 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.

I think many CS people were quite confused about what was going on. Some
did stand up, others were anxious about the statement to be read. I was
not part of the group that developed the statement, but I did chat with
Niels and Stephanie for a bit. When I walked back from the drafting many
people approached me to say they hear civil society is planning a
walkout. That would have been a mista

Civil society gained much of its demands, but we did also lose ground on
some points. While I did not agree fully with the statement or endorse
it online, I don't think we should regret it.  A more nuanced response,
that also included positive comments, and ideally more intense but
targeted critique, and that was based on a thorough reading of the
outcome document would have been better.. but there was not much time.

All in all, I think expressing criticism was better than simply going
along with the general rapture.  Yes, we could have been smarter in how
we did it, but we did make it clear we had concerns, and that is important.

> 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.

Jeanette, some governments had been part of the editing process -
directly and indirectly, and had monitored it very closely. As a
drafting group we negotiated and struggled through a difficult process,
and we knew that some of the text included did challenge what some
government stakeholders wanted. We - Markus and myself as co-chairs -
chose to err on the side of what seemed to be the "mood of the room" on
some of these issues. Possibly this was a mistake, and we could have
compromised more. I personally might have erred in defending some text -
submissions on intermediary liability and surveillance - too
vigorously.  But I felt that avoiding controversy, when there were
issues such as mass surveillance which  very many people had very strong
feelings about, would not do justice to the process.

I think if we had more time, we could have made use of careful
wordsmithing in ways that would have overcome some of the disagreement. 
We did manage to get consensus, more or less, treatment of network
neutrality with the Brazilian government representatives graciously
agreeing to descriptive text in the principles section of the document
and use of the term network neutrality in the roadmap section of the
document.
>
> 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.

Markus and I left the room and as co chairs working with the scribe we
made the changes that were demanded. We did our best to not lose all of
the spirit of the original text.

While I also felt strongly that getting agreed text was important and
that a chairman's report would have been a HUGE HUGE disappointment, I
also see this differently. In several ways:

1) Why do we not see the fact that the many governments who did not
speak up but who did not support the document as failure?  Is support
from those at the Executive High Level Committee enough to give this
document the status it needs for us to use it going forward? What about
the many other governments that did not support the text, even if they
did not speak up?

2) Does this mean that MS processes must always end in consensus?  I
question that. Yes, I agree, this process needed to reach agreement on
principles. We need this going forward with democratising governance and
making sure that the internet is preserved as a common resource.  But
surely we will never always agree?

In other words, we need to create space in our MS processes for how to
deal with disagreement. And if this disagreement is always going to be
resolved by civil society having to be the group that makes the
concessions, we need to think very carefully of what we are gaining, and
consider how these processes will retain their credibility.

I respect the views of those governments and other stakeholders who had
difficulty with aspects of the text. What I would have liked would have
been more debate and discussion, and, with more time (which I know we
did not have) spent on reaching agreement, and if that still failed,
some recognition of the differences in views and the reasons for them. 
In this sense a fuller report of the event would be very valuable.

>
> 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 think this is important. I believe that even if one is critical, it is
so important to respect and value the effort that people put into the
process. And NETMundial took a huge amount of effort. I joined this
process only at the end, when we were already in Sao Paulo as I was
invited to be a co-chair of principles. What was clear to me from the
meetings I attended (late into the night) was how difficult it was to
'get the process right' and how hard people tried. Also the Brazilian
government and CGI.br people and everyone else involved in the EMC and
the secretariat.

So big thank you to Adam, Jeanette, Marilia, Joana, Carlos Afonso and
all the other people who worked so hard to make sure civil society views
and participation featured prominently in the process. I think you
succeeded.
>
> 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.

Agree. But we should also stay on our toes, and keep government and
business on theirs.

Anriette

> 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.
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140501/c7cbc237/attachment.htm>