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

Thu May 1 07:40:14 EDT 2014

+1, especially with regard to the idea of management of expectations.

The NETMundial process was never going to result in something that would
be satisfactory to all CSO actors, much less to all stakeholders. If one
took note of the design of the event from the beginning, one couldn¹t help
but expect a less-than-satisfactory result.

Nevertheless, the event clearly both (a) signifies progress, as Jeanette
points out, and (b) should be credited for *inspiring* progress, as
Brazilian lawmakers and President Dilma Rousseff labored to pass the Marco
Civil da Internet in time for presentation at NETMundial. (Of course, the
Marco Civil is not a perfect outcome either.)

Considered in the light of history, such progress over a short timeline,
under such tightly constrained circumstances, with imperfect processes,
deserves to be recognized primarily as a positive accomplishment, and
shouldn¹t be dismissed as Yet Another Disappointment. It¹s easy for CSO
actors to fall into a primarily negative response, but we may forget how
easy it is as well for such a response to be dismissed as reflexive and
non-constructive.

That said, I have no problem with ongoing measured and even-handed
assessments, which I think are important. The one I like most right now is
the statement from ACP at http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224/.

‹-Mike

-- 
Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project

mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446

Skype mnemonic1026
Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA

INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.
www.internews.org <http://www.internews.org/> | @internews
<http://www.twitter.com/internews> | facebook.com/internews
<http://www.facebook.com/internews>

On 5/1/14, 6:52 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> 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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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 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.
>
>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 can¹t 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