[bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement
Mishi Choudhary
mishi at softwarefreedom.org
Thu May 1 11:20:28 EDT 2014
As a person who stood up and applauded for some parts and not the others
because my perception and understanding of the process was very
different, I find Jeanette's explanation extremely helpful. I was
tweeting about how impressed I was with her, Adam and Anriette but was
extremely disappointed with what I thought was developing. This also
educates me and makes me wonder if we were in the same meeting.
I can imagine Adam and Anriette's predicament with no specific language
to work with. I witnessed it in the drafting room sometimes and was left
frustrated myself, having no way of contributing and gawking at
business reps and their team which had different waves of alternative
language to propose. I was only an observer and did not have the
responsibility as Adam and Anriette had. This speaks to our lack of
coordination on crucial issues, for example Net Neutrality and
Intellectual Property Rights language.
Mathew is correct in highlighting the positive parts of our approach but
I think having designated teams with people who have expertise in
specific areas, can come up with actual words to reflect our concerns
while thinking on their feet is crucial. If we can divide effort and
coordinate our statements better, it will be a huge learning for the
next such opportunity.
On 05/01/2014 10:04 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> Just to move beyond the "who did what and why" during the somewhat
> chaotic last moments of NETmundial and focus on what we learned, here
> are a couple of thoughts:
>
> * The pre-day worked very well and we should take those structured
> approaches more often - there was a real sense of working together
> and accomplishment
> * We played a central and constructive role because we contributed
> fully to the entire process, from the consultations contributing
> as either platforms or as individual organizations, through the
> event itself - that consistent engagement is critical in my mind
> to our success and is a learning for other fora that we engage in
> * If there was a moment when our engagement broke down a little it
> was when the text went into the smaller drafting groups - we
> should have been more available and organized around those
> committees when they needed wording or assistance
> * We identified speakers who spoke to issues of concern for which we
> largely had a common view - an achievement and something we should
> consider in the future
> * We had text for many of the key issues - which was critical - but
> as others have noted, the specificity that was needed by the
> committees was sometimes lacking - a lesson for next time
> * The multi-stakeholder approach was largely practiced throughout,
> with the exception of the last moments where the primacy of
> governments became apparent. Whether this was a reality of this
> particular process or not, it reminds us of the importance of
> reaching out to all stakeholders to understand where their
> thinking is on critical issues. We should continue to push our
> positions of course but we also need to know where other stand on
> the same. We may never see eye to eye with other stakeholders on
> some/many issues but it is good to understand where they are so we
> are not as surprised as we were by the NETmundial end game in the
> future.
> * We may not get all that we want, but we can get a lot - as we did
> in Sao Paulo. And this is in part testament to the points above
> and how well civil society engaged and cooperated.
>
> My 2 centavos
>
> Matthew
>
> On 5/1/2014 9:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> 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
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
--
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org
Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140501/539ac18a/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list