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

[Stephanie Perrin]

Dear all, I have hesitated to wade into this discussion,  but I think as I was one of your elected/chosen representatives on the HLMC, I have a responsibility to clarify a few things, and express my views.  

1.  Firstly, thanks to Jeannette for the very good summary below.  It is clear to me that even though there were many civil society representatives in the meeting between the HLMC and the HMC, many did not realize how close we were to losing the entire game at the 11th hour.   Document, strong wording, and (most importantly) the ability to declare the process of Netmundial a success, a conference which moved so many yardsticks in a positive direction,  nearly went out the window.  This would have been, in my view, pretty close to a catastrophe, on a number of levels, but particularly for the Brazilian government, who had shown true leadership in proposing this conference and in linking up the world.   This fact, that we nearly lost everything, was clear to many (most?) governments, who came up to me after I intervened to isolate the representative of the Indian government at that meeting.   That it was not clear to civil society, in my view, is a matter of deep concern.  I am not looking for thanks, I am just wondering about our collective political maturity.
2.  Having said that, I would like to thank Carlos for his support for my interventions.  Let me be clear, I was perfectly happy with the very dignified expression of dissent and disappointment that Niels delivered, but it was not my place to deliver it.  As a member of the HLMC, which was the forum to contain governments, it was important that I delivered a balanced message, and left on a note that declared victory for our Brazilian hosts.
3.  Thirdly, while we had an excellent civil society meeting on the day before the conference, truly well organized and stimulating, we did not leave there clear on either the process or the strategy.  I would respectfully suggest that this was a serious omission.  What were our goals?  was it to craft a strong document?  was it to find allies in the room, to help us advance our roles and responsibilities beyond the holding pen we were placed in at Tunis?  was it to endorse a new kind of multi-stakeholder model?  It is vitally important, when preparing for a complex meeting like this one, that we establish some kind of rough consensus on what we are trying to achieve, and how we plan to achieve that.  Time was not on our side, but we still needed goals, strategy and tactics.
4.  Fourthly, we need to have an accurate picture of risk, and how it is escalating in the current global environment.  I was very struck by something that Anja Kovacs said at the Toronto conference Cyber-dialogues, immediately after the ICANN Singapore meeting.  She said, I am not going to encourage my stakeholders, poor and disenfranchised folks, to get on the Internet and use ICT, if all it is going to do is set them up to be surveilled and controlled.  Indeed.  I believe this is a serious threat.  How does one control that threat?  Not by alienating governments.  They need to buy into the multi-stakeholder process, and this was a golden opportunity to persuade them that it does not hurt.  When I hear the very thoughtful Indian government representative repeating on the podium and in the room, "we have learned a lot from this meeting", we need to wonder (and find out) just exactly what he learned.  If what he is saying, is that it will be a cold day in hell when we come back to a meeting such as this, then our stakeholders in India have lost a round.  
5.  Please pardon me for lecturing folks who have been in this game a long time, but if you think governments (and powerful corporations who control them) are anxious to expose themselves to criticism from strident civil society representatives, you are mistaken.  The control that western governments exert, those who believe in vigorous free speech and discourse with their critics as a general rule, is waning.  For the sake of those billions of existing and potential netizens living in the new and burgeoning economies of the BRICS, and the many other countries who look to the Internet for growth, representatives of civil society have a serious responsibility to consider how their actions and words are going to be interpreted, and brought home to capitals.  Fine for those of us living in Europe and North America to say things that annoy our government and business partners, but we must be mindful that we could be delivering the powerless into the hands of those who would like to control them and take every shred of power from them.  This does not mean civil society must be toothless or weak, it means we must be careful, deliberative, consultative, and strong.  We have right on our side, we don’t need to act with precipitate haste, or anger.  We need to consider the long view, and the long game.  We need to look statesmanlike.
6.  In this sense, my priority was not the text. It was and is the process.  Sometimes, it is vital to determine prior to a meeting such as this one, exactly what each stakeholder (I mean the various governments, our hosts, the business caucuses, entities such as ICANN) need to get out of the meeting.  This will then determine how much you push for in the text, and how you play it.  Business knows this.  I think we overplayed our hand, drew the governments out unnecessarily, and this allowed the IP constituency to get more than they deserved.  This was avoidable, but only with a more mature strategy.  
7.  Finally, I would close by echoing what Jeannette has said.  Do not underestimate how fragile this process is, and how precarious our own roles in Internet governance are.  One of the easiest things for governments to do is to sponsor the kind of annual conference that has gone on at IGF.  There are no outcomes that require negotiation and the sharing of power.  It is cheap.   CS stakeholders who come to these events very quickly fall in love with the sense of power, the meetings in exotic places, and so on.  Competition for scarce travel resources automatically pits one against the other, which acts to prevent a unified position.  Civil society has a real risk of capture, in a process that will not deliver what the world’s netizens need.  In the meantime, is there real progress in enacting human rights?  In getting a fair distribution of power? In halting surveillance?  Absent serious metrics and evaluation of how civil society is spending its time and leadership talent, we don’t know.  We should ask governments for the money to develop metrics and accountability mechanisms for civil society, we are going to need them. 

I truly don’t mean to sound negative.  The leadership folks have showed at this event was amazing.  It was a great honour to be selected to represent you on the HLMC, and it was a great pleasure to participate at this event.  I want to thank everyone who worked so hard, and tried so hard to do the right thing.  It was a great success, in my view.  I am not trying to spoil it by issuing warnings, I am trying to suggest that we need to be up a notch when the next event comes along. We need to be ready.  Lots more work required :-)
Stephanie Perrin