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

Thu May 1 14:26:30 EDT 2014

Hello Jean,

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Thanks Stephanie,
>
> I suggested to launch a dialogue, presumably knowing that there are a few
> stakeholders out here. I suggested to have a CS conversation indeed so to
> see if any CS common ground exists -  I am not convinced this cannot be
> achieved, as I do not see a true CS conversation going on, with so many
> interferences polluting the CS floor. Having a larger ground from the CS
> would increase its ability to influence other parties, whether the private
> sector or the governments. In my opinion this conversation is mostly needed
> among the CS (out of the I*, the 5 eyes, and governments). Shining a light
> of the different visions of a full eco-system seems to be a good and
> potentially fruitful perspective. So are you saying that it cannot be a CS
> dialogue, without embedding all other parties - what you call stakeholders.
>
> I thought you said you wanted an open dialogue? unless you want to
introduce a membership process for CS then i did say the CS by nature is
open and already inter-related with the I*, the 5 eyes, and governments so
we should take advantage of that profile to make a difference. If CSMundial
will help achieve a further collaboration between the existing stakeholder
and not further make CS distant itself then i rest my case. All i call for
is to be strategic in all these.

Am I understanding you correctly? No CS dialogue because it contradicts the
> multistakeholder model? Waiting for Seun reaction and comments as you know
> have very different understanding of what Seun wrote.
>

I thought i had replied? Unless it wasn't enough; please let me know what
part needs further clarification

Kind Regards!

>
> JC
>
> Le 1 mai 2014 à 19:59, Stephanie Perrin a écrit :
>
> The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence:  *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.*
> By support, I meant actually cooperation.  IN a multi-stakeholder process,
> you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have
> to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective
> endeavour.  That is what I meant.  Civil Society cannot do this alone.
>  They will achieve little without partners.  I was actually not referring
> to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies.
> Kind regards,
> Stephanie
> On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <
> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your answer and interest,
>
> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the
> arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over
> the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger
> your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were
> the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you
> not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians
> chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with
> pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first
> argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and
> hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to?
>
> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the
> success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be
> seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume
> we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and
> some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be
> envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have
> an open debate over different eco-systems?
>
> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message.
>
> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put
> in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for
> correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are
> referring to.
>
> JC
>
>
>
>
> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit :
>
> +1  A welcome reminder of reality.
> Stephanie Perrin
> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140501/bb5268f8/attachment.htm>