From Guru at ITforChange.net  Sat Nov  1 01:42:52 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:12:52 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU
 Plenipot joint recommendations
In-Reply-To: <54541889.2030709@acm.org>
References: <CAFwCmbGye0uz86edkpTzCw_dFm3FbcovCnv4QTj6JzgV0T1XzA@mail.gmail.com> <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <CAFwCmbHTXov4uhdjji0d56O3VM8V+tjWiKL2yDv2oM_em8k0Vg@mail.gmail.com> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxiJighdPkhHs16Re+Tfw=7h=_DxKarrBm3u9S25ZfmMZA@mail.gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <BDE0EAEF13F3C64B8514446A0D9E29A250CDCD92@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> <CAMz5XN7ATj-RDfitpgO+U=_T0g14z7Pj1Fn_HvaySWcSwG0iLg@mail.gmail.com> <54541889.2030709@acm.org>
Message-ID: <545472DC.5080703@ITforChange.net>

On Saturday 01 November 2014 04:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The problem is that no matter how one tries to finesse it, it would be 
> seen as CS abandoning the model.
> The word itself is not the issue, it is only the symbol that those who 
> want to attack the participatory democratic movement attack instead of 
> improving it.  It is the means those who want to exclude one 
> stakeholder or other take.  I understand that there are those in 
> business that want to exclude CS.  They too attack the word.
>
> I believe those who stop using the term, surrender the ideal.  You 
> should see the vehemence that some at Plenipot use against the term.  
> Those who want no one  other than the despotic leaders of their 
> nations to rule the Internet.  It is these people we would be be 
> allying ourselves with if we abandoned the term multistakeholder.
>

My my, what vehemence  (I hear - We are the saviours of the world. All 
others with different viewpoint are not just wrong, but have bad 
intentions.....  Its a joke to think that some people will WANT despotic 
leaders to rule the Internet)

"Existing governance arrangements for the global Internet are 
inadequate. They suffer from a lack of democracy; an absence of 
legitimacy, accountability and transparency; excessive corporate 
influence and regulatory capture; and too few opportunities for 
effective participation by people, especially from developing countries. 
The situation can be remedied only through fundamental changes to the 
current governance arrangements." ......read more at 
http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration

Guru

> avri
>
>
>
> On 31-Oct-14 21:47, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>> (Apologies for cross-posting by adding the IGC)
>>
>> "This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of
>> the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through
>> multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :)"
>>
>> Following from Anriette I would suggest again that these discussions might
>> make a lot more progress towards consensus if we didn't use "the MS term"
>> either. It is obviously possible to do without it.
>>
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>> On 31 October 2014 03:41, Anriette Esterhuysen<anriette at apc.org>  wrote:
>>
>>>   Dear all
>>>
>>> I am only reading this now.
>>>
>>> It is excellent.. thanks so much for posting Gabrielle.
>>>
>>> This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of
>>> the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through
>>> multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :)
>>>
>>> Civil society activists in the internet space so much opportunity for
>>> productive debate and development of positions because of the polarisation
>>> between pro-multistakeholder and pro-multilateral factions when it is clear
>>> that current approaches in the multilateral system are failing civil
>>> society and failing to support any meaningful reform.
>>>
>>> Quoting Maina: "I am convinced that the traditional approach to
>>> multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people
>>> are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that
>>> multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute
>>> development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape
>>> international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence
>>> these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over."
>>>
>>> By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing
>>> to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international
>>> internet-related governance.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31/10/2014 04:34, joy wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Gabrielle - I meant to say, thanks for sharing this - it's a compelling
>>> report and useful for our work.
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Joy
>>> On 25/10/2014 12:27 a.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
>>>
>>> I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Gabrielle
>>>
>>>
>>> Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.”
>>>
>>> The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people.
>>>
>>> A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post<http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/07/protests-banned-during-bali-democracy-forum.html>  <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/07/protests-banned-during-bali-democracy-forum.html>. Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum<http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/indonesia/71307-activists-reject-ba!
>>>   li-democ
>>> racy-forum>  <http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/indonesia/71307-activists-reject-bali-democracy-forum>  a “ceremonial event”.
>>>
>>> It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states.
>>>
>>> On October 28, I will present a report<http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurreports/report-multilaterals/>  <http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurreports/report-multilaterals/>  to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input.
>>>
>>> To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy.
>>>
>>> I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over.
>>>
>>> As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say.
>>>
>>> First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception<http://ewebapps.worldbank.org/apps/ip/Pages/Home.aspx>  <http://ewebapps.worldbank.org/apps/ip/Pages/Home.aspx>). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement.
>>>
>>> Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily.
>>>
>>> The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network<http://idsn.org/news-resources/idsn-news/read/article/idsns-fight-for-un-consultative-status-a-case-of-reprisal-against-a-human-rights-ngo/128/>  <http://idsn.org/news-resourc!
>>>   es/idsn-
>>> news/read/article/idsns-fight-for-un-consultative-status-a-case-of-reprisal-against-a-human-rights-ngo/128/>, has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India.
>>>
>>> Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli<http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurpressnews/cao-shunli/>  <http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurpressnews/cao-shunli/>, a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care.
>>>
>>> Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved.
>>>
>>> Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened.
>>>
>>> There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies<http://www.olympic.org/documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf>  <http://www.olympic.org/documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf>  at their events altogether.
>>>
>>> No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf.
>>>
>>> It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either.
>>>
>>> The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings.
>>>
>>> When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states.
>>>
>>> Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses.
>>>
>>> Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly<http://freeassembly.net/>  <http://freeassembly.net/>  website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR<https://twitter.com/MainaKiai_UNSR>  <https://twitter.com/MainaKiai_UNSR>  on Twitter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net  [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57
>>> To: 'Avri Doria';bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>>>
>>> You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia
>>>
>>>
>>> Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29>  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29>  of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>  (Greek demos<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos>  <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos>  and kratos<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82>  <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82>) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participator
>>>   y. …
>>> Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.
>>> It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”.
>>> But maybe I’m missing something.
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>> From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net  [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net  <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM
>>> To:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>
>>>   If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance.
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't read your blog.  But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme.  I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy.
>>>
>>> I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition.  So the frames of reference are really quite different.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> executive director
>>> association for progressive communications
>>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, southafricaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/581adaea/attachment.htm>

From dave at difference.com.au  Sat Nov  1 07:15:19 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 19:15:19 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)
In-Reply-To: <B6BDCC55-EDDE-4D11-B55F-6B0CC09A90F2@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <DA5BCF87-F566-4BDF-A68B-8E24E5E52CC6@difference.com.au> <B6BDCC55-EDDE-4D11-B55F-6B0CC09A90F2@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <F5AF7148-4A7A-422D-94E7-13717F39ADDE@difference.com.au>


On 1 Nov 2014, at 6:56 pm, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> The bestbits subscribers awaken this morning  all felt that you had something to deliver. So many emails!! :-)

	The result of a quiet saturday here, I'm afraid. 

>  Personally, I welcome one long email, by opposition to chorizo's slices that sometimes make it hard to distinguish between facts, principles, assumptions, misleading characterizations, personal rant...

	To quote Walt Whitman, I contain multitudes. 

	And I'm afraid, like many people from the early internet era, I have a strong tendency to inline reply in email, which I understand makes me somewhat old-fashioned now that top quoting is the dominant posting style, sorry about the chorizo effect. 

> I also welcome the fact that most of what you elaborate comes from an ICANN insider's reflection, in addition to fox, pigs, chicken... Old timers jokes about the natural asymmetry of life... For me, a good joke starts with a MS status-quoer who thinks he is the perfect example of a respectful dignitary of Participative Democracy thanks to his MS dogma (the next best step of Democracy).

	I would never claim to be the perfect example of a respectful dignitary. Though I hope I can manage it now and then. 

> Of course, it is like pigs, fox and chicken, that story is just a joke for new comers with a fresh vision of what should be a fair and democratic way of governing the global and transnational Internet, by opposition to what it is today thanks to...
> 
> Will read you thoroughly.

	I appreciate the sentiment, though I certainly believe we all have our right to appropriate attention conservation. 

	Regards
		David

> 
> JC
> A proud JNC founder and member
> 
> 
> 
> Le 1 nov. 2014 à 11:21, David Cake a écrit :
> 
>> 	So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation). 
>> 	
>> 	And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. 
>> 
>> 	So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong
>> 	
>> 	The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF. 
>> 	
>> 	So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. 
>> 
>> 	I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. 
>> 
>> 	I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se. 
>> 
>> 	There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc. 
>> 
>> 	Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. 
>> 	And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text. 
>> 	Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. 
>> 
>> 	It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default. 
>> 
>> 	It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value. 
>> 
>> 	And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures.
>> It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more  being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others. 
>> 
>> 	And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable. 
>> 	
>> 	It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not. 
>> 
>> 	So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes. 
>> The TL:DR summary - 
>> Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. 
>> Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And 
>> Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures. 
>> 
>> And my impression is that the JNC position:
>> - does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation. 
>> - favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates. 
>> - favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes. 
>> I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. 
>> 
>> I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful. 
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> David
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/f818b2ff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/f818b2ff/attachment.sig>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Nov 17 00:54:05 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:54:05 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Society Statement on the NETmundial Initiative
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1JqKS9diTDH=cXWANtoMn1ybC0B847T=-G84+N7YVvww@mail.gmail.com>

For some background on this read Kieren McCarthy
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/07/internet_un_security_council_net_mundial_initiative/>
and Philip Corwin
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141007_beyond_netmundial_initiative_or_inertia/>
.


 joly posted: " Yesterday, November 16 2014. following it's meeting in
Honolulu, the Internet Society's Board of Trustees issued the following
statement: Recently, the “I* Group” different from the one-time NETmundial
meeting in which we participated in April 2014; we e"


[image: Internet Society]
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/isoc.png> Yesterday,
November 16 2014. following its meeting
<http://internetsociety.org/board-meeting-agenda-no-117> in Honolulu, the
Internet Society's Board of Trustees issued the following statement
<http://internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-netmundial-initiative>
:

Recently, the “I* Group” [1] was invited to participate in the NETmundial
Initiative, which is different from the one-time NETmundial meeting in
which we participated in April 2014; we endorsed the outcomes of that
meeting. This new and different NETmundial Initiative has been organized by
the partnership of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the World
Economic Forum (WEF)[2]. This announcement has resulted in considerable
discussion and concern amongst various stakeholders regarding the purpose,
scope, and nature of the proposed activity or organization.

The Internet Society Board discussed this proposed NETmundial Initiative in
depth during its meeting November 15 – 16, 2014. As a result, the Internet
Society Board first emphasizes that the main priority facing the Internet
community right now is the IANA Functions’ Stewardship Transition and
recommends that all organizations in the Internet community should be
highly focused on effectuating a successful transition. The Internet
Society remains fully committed to the September 2015 milestone set for
completing a plan that will meet the criteria set by U.S. National
Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA).

With respect to the need for new groups, such as the NETmundial Initiative
and its Coordination Council, the Internet Society Board reiterates that
the Internet Society’s longstanding position is that there is no single,
global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the
Internet issues that may arise. At its heart, the Internet is a
decentralized, loosely coupled, distributed system that allows policies to
be defined by those who require them for their operations and that ensures
that issues can be resolved at a level closest to their origin. The
ecosystem draws its strength from the involvement of a broad range of
actors working through open, transparent, and collaborative processes to
innovate and build the network of networks that is the cornerstone of the
global economy.[3] Based on the information that we have to date, the
Internet Society cannot agree to participate in or endorse the Coordination
Council for the NETmundial Initiative. We are concerned that the way in
which the NETmundial Initiative is being formed does not appear to be
consistent with the Internet Society’s longstanding principles, including:

• Bottom-up orientation
• Decentralized
• Open
• Transparent
• Accountable
• Multi-stakeholder

The Board has asked the Internet Society’s CEO, Kathryn Brown, to convene a
dialogue within the Internet Society community. This includes Internet
Society Chapters from around the world, Internet Society organization
members, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB), partners from the Internet technical community,
and others. The dialogue should consider whether any new initiatives or
groups are needed at the current time and, if so, to define the objectives
for any such effort.

In addition, Bob Hinden, Chairman of the Internet Society Board of Trustees
has initiated a dialogue with the Chairman of the ICANN Board, given
ICANN’s leading involvement in the NETmundial Initiative.

The Internet Society remains committed to a vision of the Internet that is
open, inclusive, decentralized and for the benefit of all people throughout
the world.

Notes:
[1] The I* Group encompasses the Internet Society, IETF, IAB, World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C), Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), ICANN, and the
regional Top Level Domain (TLD) organizations.
[2] https://www.netmundial.org/press-release-1
[3] The Internet Society’s position from the World Summit on Information
Society (WSIS) of 2003 and 2005, is “Many issues cannot be solved by new,
overarching structures at a global level but rather by building on today’s
open, multi-stakeholder and cooperative processes.” And that the community
should “...consider whether new structures will bring truly measurable,
positive change to the functioning, stability, security and openness of the
Internet.” (http://www.internetsociety.org/wsis).


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7205#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7205#comments>





*Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7205






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141117/7026936f/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Mon Nov 17 02:47:01 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:47:01 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba>
References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu>


ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding 
an Internet Governance Forum.
jeanette

Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter:
> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative
> Big development... will be interesting to see responses
> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
> *To:* ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>
> A must read djf
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden at gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden at gmail.com>>
> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM
> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" <isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org
> <mailto:isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org>>
> Cc:
>
> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30
> minutes or so.
>
> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it.
>
> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today!
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ISOC-trustees mailing list
> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org <mailto:ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org>
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees
>
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/853646-9b3abb6d> |
> Modify
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9>
> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F>
> 	[Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Mon Nov 17 03:18:29 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:18:29 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu>
References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com>

Hi

Kathy was very skeptical at the 28 August meeting held at WEF, so it’s no surprise.  At the time her concerns seemed to focus mostly on procedural aspects, the way the whole thing was being teed up, explained and constituted, which was bugging a lot of people.   I think the organizers tried to accommodate some of the push back they received, e.g. by inviting the CSCG to review CS proposals and bless five, but ambiguities remain as we’ve discussed.  

What the ISOC statement does not do is assess whether the idea of such a platform could be substantively useful.  The case there alas has not been made clearly enough yet either.  I have to admit I don’t quite get ISOC’s statement that "no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues,” since that clearly is not what’s being proposed.

In any event, if more networks decide not to participate in providing names the organizers will indeed be free to compose the CC however they like.

Best

Bill

> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> 
> 
> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum.
> jeanette
> 
> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter:
>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative
>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses
>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
>> *To:* ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>> 
>> A must read djf
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden at gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM
>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" <isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org
>> <mailto:isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org>>
>> Cc:
>> 
>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30
>> minutes or so.
>> 
>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it.
>> 
>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ISOC-trustees mailing list
>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org <mailto:ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org>
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees
>> 
>> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/853646-9b3abb6d> |
>> Modify
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9>
>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F>
>> 	[Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************


From wjdrake at gmail.com  Mon Nov 17 07:27:08 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:27:08 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <A340DF59-7DA7-481C-8048-94ABC8FEDA3A@gmail.com>
References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> <A340DF59-7DA7-481C-8048-94ABC8FEDA3A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6BA1286F-33AF-4BDA-9FAC-836826C63255@gmail.com>


> On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> But one question though: Bill, do you suggest that networks should participate in order for the organizers not to be free to compose the CC however they like? Is that the argument to join?

That’s ‘an' argument to join, whether it’s a sufficient ‘the’ is in the eye of the beholder.  If one doesn’t care about having a platform where project proponents can find the kind of partners this might make available, or even thinks it’s a bad idea, then how the CC is composed is presumably irrelevant.  I’d think people should only labor to agree on nominees if they believe the whole concept may be worth trying.

Cheers

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141117/34f2f481/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Nov 17 07:54:39 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:54:39 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu>
References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5469F00F.9070605@cafonso.ca>

Very good point, Jean!

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 11/17/2014 05:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding
> an Internet Governance Forum.
> jeanette
> 
> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter:
>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative
>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses
>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
>> *To:* ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>>
>> A must read djf
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden at gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM
>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial
>> Initiative
>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" <isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org
>> <mailto:isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org>>
>> Cc:
>>
>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30
>> minutes or so.
>>
>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it.
>>
>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ISOC-trustees mailing list
>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org <mailto:ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org>
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees
>>
>> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/853646-9b3abb6d> |
>> Modify
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9>
>>
>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F>
>>
>>     [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Mon Nov 17 10:55:09 2014
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:55:09 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <5469F00F.9070605@cafonso.ca>
References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu>
 <5469F00F.9070605@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwQAeHK7rJyUurrH_wuBwBXi_oXyqxppfeq9zh0TcsOXQ@mail.gmail.com>

My guess is more elements need to be more transparent before ISOC will
engage in quite the way other international advocates are eager to.  A
lot is being pushed the rest of this year and next, and those things
need to get more explicit rather than indirect as far as the
underlying foundations.



On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Very good point, Jean!
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/17/2014 05:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding
>> an Internet Governance Forum.
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter:
>>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative
>>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses
>>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
>>> *To:* ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>>>
>>> A must read djf
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden at gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden at gmail.com>>
>>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM
>>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial
>>> Initiative
>>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" <isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org
>>> <mailto:isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org>>
>>> Cc:
>>>
>>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30
>>> minutes or so.
>>>
>>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ISOC-trustees mailing list
>>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org <mailto:ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org>
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees
>>>
>>> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/853646-9b3abb6d> |
>>> Modify
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9>
>>>
>>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F>
>>>
>>>     [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Nov 17 12:20:22 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:20:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] NMI: The Caravan Has Set Out for a Neo-liberal Capture
 of Global Governance
Message-ID: <20141117182022.257a7575@quill>

As many of you will be aware, JNC has been opposed a couple of months
ago to the first shape in which the “NetMundial Initiative” (NMI) had
been announced.

NMI has now be redesigned in some ways, and WEF is now a bit less in the
foreground, but the underlying ideology is still the same.

For this reason, JNC is still opposed.

For a more detailed explanation see “The Caravan Has Set Out for a
Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance” at

http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Nov 17 12:46:49 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:46:49 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: Human Rights, Accountability, and
 Internet Governance
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0WhGX4PUJG-pg0pSS=XXru8j7Rh7TozKe22z3uT=DgpQ@mail.gmail.com>

Just starting. Another top flight event from ISOC-DC.


 joly posted: " Today, Monday 17 November 2014 the Greater Washington DC
Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) and the Institute of
International Economic Policy (IIEP) present Human Rights, Accountability,
and Internet Governance . This free luncheon seminar consid"


[image: ISOC DC Human Rights in IG]
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/isoc-dc_hr_ig_170x255.png>
Today,* Monday 17 November 2014* the *Greater Washington DC Chapter of the
Internet Society <http://www.isoc-dc.org/>* (ISOC-DC) and the *Institute of
International Economic Policy <http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/> *(IIEP)
present *Human
Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance
<http://www.isoc-dc.org/2014/11/human-rights-accountability-and-internet-governance-a-panel-discussion/>
*. This free luncheon seminar considers how recent proposed changes in
Internet governance will affect human rights online and how Internet
governance institutions and processes might be made more accountable to
netizens. Panel: Ambassador *David Gross*, Wiley Rein; *Danielle Kehl*,
Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation; *Manu Bhardwaj*, United
States Department of State; *Robert Guerra*, Founder & Executive Director,
Privaterra; Member, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee
(SSAC); *Andrea
Glorioso*, European Union Delegation to the United States. Moderator: *Susan
Ariel Aaronson*, Research Professor of International Affairs, The George
Washington University. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet
Society Livestream <https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/humanrights>*
channel.





*What: Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance
<http://www.isoc-dc.org/2014/11/human-rights-accountability-and-internet-governance-a-panel-discussion/>
Where: Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington
University, Washington DC When: Monday 17 November 2014 12-30pm-2pm EST |
17:30-19:00 UTC Webcast:
https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/humanrights
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/humanrights> Twitter: @isocdc +
#humanrights
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=isocdc%20humanrights&src=typd>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7212#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7212#comments>





*Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7212



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


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141117/2d242b94/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Mon Nov 17 13:13:23 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:13:23 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu>
References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com>

Denounced it as a threat until it was clearly going to happen anyway, and then loved it to death.

BD

> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> 
> 
> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum.
> jeanette
> 
> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter:
>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative
>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses
>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
>> *To:* ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>> 
>> A must read djf
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden at gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM
>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" <isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org
>> <mailto:isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org>>
>> Cc:
>> 
>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30
>> minutes or so.
>> 
>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it.
>> 
>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ISOC-trustees mailing list
>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org <mailto:ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org>
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees
>> 
>> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/853646-9b3abb6d> |
>> Modify
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9>
>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F>
>> 	[Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Nov 17 13:41:13 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:41:13 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com>
References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <4CA15892-2DD6-4377-A15C-9E0E6B227A02@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546A4149.4040700@cafonso.ca>

Basically yes, Bill.

--c.a.

On 11/17/2014 04:13 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Denounced it as a threat until it was clearly going to happen anyway, and then loved it to death.
> 
> BD
> 
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum.
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter:
>>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative
>>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses
>>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
>>> *To:* ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>>>
>>> A must read djf
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden at gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden at gmail.com>>
>>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM
>>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" <isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org
>>> <mailto:isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org>>
>>> Cc:
>>>
>>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30
>>> minutes or so.
>>>
>>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ISOC-trustees mailing list
>>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org <mailto:ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org>
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees
>>>
>>> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/853646-9b3abb6d> |
>>> Modify
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9>
>>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F>
>>> 	[Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sat Nov  1 07:35:45 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:35:45 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)
In-Reply-To: <F5AF7148-4A7A-422D-94E7-13717F39ADDE@difference.com.au>
References: <DA5BCF87-F566-4BDF-A68B-8E24E5E52CC6@difference.com.au> <B6BDCC55-EDDE-4D11-B55F-6B0CC09A90F2@theglobaljournal.net> <F5AF7148-4A7A-422D-94E7-13717F39ADDE@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <F21552BD-3CEB-4325-835A-3EAE46CDF655@theglobaljournal.net>

Enjoy your week-end David.

This morning, under a beautiful sun I did my "marché" to pick up a few fresh veggies and fruits. Now going into my cooking time for the upcoming week
- Cheesecake à ma façon (more New Yorker than Geneva-style)
- Ratatouille with love
- Soupe de potiron à la Bocuse (Lyon isn't far away).

Then, I'll be hunting fox up in the surrounding mountains with my son Ernie.

Will breath and think of why Democracy is still my best bet. And why I cherish it so deeply whoever are its good and bad representatives. "First of all, Democracy must endure". From SF, to Delhi and Kobane, all public major concern are best served by trust you confer to others in order to counter the invisible (if not natural) hands of the powerfuls and giants. That is part of the democratic game and constant fragile challenge. IG needs a lot of rebalancing I would say when it comes to its public policy concerns. And JNC is a courageous voice that we are lucky to have around the table in order to shake the asymmetric MS house.

JC

Le 1 nov. 2014 à 12:15, David Cake a écrit :

> 
> On 1 Nov 2014, at 6:56 pm, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> The bestbits subscribers awaken this morning  all felt that you had something to deliver. So many emails!! :-)
> 
> 	The result of a quiet saturday here, I'm afraid. 
> 
>>  Personally, I welcome one long email, by opposition to chorizo's slices that sometimes make it hard to distinguish between facts, principles, assumptions, misleading characterizations, personal rant...
> 
> 	To quote Walt Whitman, I contain multitudes. 
> 
> 	And I'm afraid, like many people from the early internet era, I have a strong tendency to inline reply in email, which I understand makes me somewhat old-fashioned now that top quoting is the dominant posting style, sorry about the chorizo effect. 
> 
>> I also welcome the fact that most of what you elaborate comes from an ICANN insider's reflection, in addition to fox, pigs, chicken... Old timers jokes about the natural asymmetry of life... For me, a good joke starts with a MS status-quoer who thinks he is the perfect example of a respectful dignitary of Participative Democracy thanks to his MS dogma (the next best step of Democracy).
> 
> 	I would never claim to be the perfect example of a respectful dignitary. Though I hope I can manage it now and then. 
> 
>> Of course, it is like pigs, fox and chicken, that story is just a joke for new comers with a fresh vision of what should be a fair and democratic way of governing the global and transnational Internet, by opposition to what it is today thanks to...
>> 
>> Will read you thoroughly.
> 
> 	I appreciate the sentiment, though I certainly believe we all have our right to appropriate attention conservation. 
> 
> 	Regards
> 		David
> 
>> 
>> JC
>> A proud JNC founder and member
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 1 nov. 2014 à 11:21, David Cake a écrit :
>> 
>>> 	So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation). 
>>> 	
>>> 	And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. 
>>> 
>>> 	So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong
>>> 	
>>> 	The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF. 
>>> 	
>>> 	So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. 
>>> 
>>> 	I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. 
>>> 
>>> 	I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se. 
>>> 
>>> 	There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc. 
>>> 
>>> 	Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. 
>>> 	And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text. 
>>> 	Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. 
>>> 
>>> 	It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default. 
>>> 
>>> 	It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value. 
>>> 
>>> 	And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures.
>>> It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more  being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others. 
>>> 
>>> 	And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable. 
>>> 	
>>> 	It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not. 
>>> 
>>> 	So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes. 
>>> The TL:DR summary - 
>>> Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. 
>>> Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And 
>>> Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures. 
>>> 
>>> And my impression is that the JNC position:
>>> - does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation. 
>>> - favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates. 
>>> - favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes. 
>>> I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. 
>>> 
>>> I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful. 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> David
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/61a55065/attachment.htm>

From amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se  Mon Nov 17 13:54:51 2014
From: amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se (Amelia Andersdotter)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 19:54:51 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com>
References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546A447B.8080504@piratpartiet.se>

Hello,

On 11/17/14 09:18, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Kathy was very skeptical at the 28 August meeting held at WEF, so it’s no surprise.  At the time her concerns seemed to focus mostly on procedural aspects, the way the whole thing was being teed up, explained and constituted, which was bugging a lot of people.   I think the organizers tried to accommodate some of the push back they received, e.g. by inviting the CSCG to review CS proposals and bless five, but ambiguities remain as we’ve discussed.  
>
> What the ISOC statement does not do is assess whether the idea of such a platform could be substantively useful.  The case there alas has not been made clearly enough yet either.  I have to admit I don’t quite get ISOC’s statement that "no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues,” since that clearly is not what’s being proposed.

I find myself asking what "useful" would mean. Clearly there is a need
for decision making, not only of the technical kind but also of a
political and economical kind. Technical decisions can easily be unmade
by making their implementation economically unfeasible (as has been done
for electronics with CALEA, et c)

We have a problem with the level of decision making. Is this new global
forum actually incentivising proper decision making at the right level?
To me it appears just another talk forum, of which we already have one
(IGF).

There is also the question of the IGF: should it be more useful? As
Jeremy Malcolm has pointed out, civil society has tried to reinforce IGF
in the past, but unsuccessfully. Building on the NN Dynamic Coalition
experience might eventually turn out more fruitful also for the I*s than
to go along with the explosion of new forums for talking about IG.

> In any event, if more networks decide not to participate in providing names the organizers will indeed be free to compose the CC however they like.

Most of the very contentious decisions about the internet's future are
made in legislatures around the world, not in the UN. Most contentious
decisions are also contentious for political or economical reasons, not
for technical reasons. Such problems need to be over-come by local
engagement (I believe) and so it might be good if more networks joined
ISOC in turning down more global forums and focusing more on local level
policies(?)

best regards,

Amelia

> Best
>
> Bill
>
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum.
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter:
>>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative
>>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses
>>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
>>> *To:* ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>>>
>>> A must read djf
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden at gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden at gmail.com>>
>>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM
>>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" <isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org
>>> <mailto:isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org>>
>>> Cc:
>>>
>>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30
>>> minutes or so.
>>>
>>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ISOC-trustees mailing list
>>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org <mailto:ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org>
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees
>>>
>>> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/853646-9b3abb6d> |
>>> Modify
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9>
>>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F>
>>> 	[Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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



From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Mon Nov 17 13:58:28 2014
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:58:28 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <546A447B.8080504@piratpartiet.se>
References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> <546A447B.8080504@piratpartiet.se>
Message-ID: <546A4554.7070209@softwarefreedom.org>

I would also like to have more clarity on all the points Amelia  raises
including the locus of the decisions that are made. I have rarely seen
a  discussion which helps strategize ways to use push from global civil
society to overcome local problems.


On 11/17/2014 01:54 PM, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 11/17/14 09:18, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Kathy was very skeptical at the 28 August meeting held at WEF, so it’s no surprise.  At the time her concerns seemed to focus mostly on procedural aspects, the way the whole thing was being teed up, explained and constituted, which was bugging a lot of people.   I think the organizers tried to accommodate some of the push back they received, e.g. by inviting the CSCG to review CS proposals and bless five, but ambiguities remain as we’ve discussed.  
>>
>> What the ISOC statement does not do is assess whether the idea of such a platform could be substantively useful.  The case there alas has not been made clearly enough yet either.  I have to admit I don’t quite get ISOC’s statement that "no single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the Internet issues,” since that clearly is not what’s being proposed.
> I find myself asking what "useful" would mean. Clearly there is a need
> for decision making, not only of the technical kind but also of a
> political and economical kind. Technical decisions can easily be unmade
> by making their implementation economically unfeasible (as has been done
> for electronics with CALEA, et c)
>
> We have a problem with the level of decision making. Is this new global
> forum actually incentivising proper decision making at the right level?
> To me it appears just another talk forum, of which we already have one
> (IGF).
>
> There is also the question of the IGF: should it be more useful? As
> Jeremy Malcolm has pointed out, civil society has tried to reinforce IGF
> in the past, but unsuccessfully. Building on the NN Dynamic Coalition
> experience might eventually turn out more fruitful also for the I*s than
> to go along with the explosion of new forums for talking about IG.

>
>> In any event, if more networks decide not to participate in providing names the organizers will indeed be free to compose the CC however they like.
> Most of the very contentious decisions about the internet's future are
> made in legislatures around the world, not in the UN. Most contentious
> decisions are also contentious for political or economical reasons, not
> for technical reasons. Such problems need to be over-come by local
> engagement (I believe) and so it might be good if more networks joined
> ISOC in turning down more global forums and focusing more on local level
> policies(?)

> best regards,
>
> Amelia
>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ISOC said more or less the same thing in 2005 about the idea of founding an Internet Governance Forum.
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Am 17.11.14 05:04, schrieb Ian Peter:
>>>> Note: ISOC is refusing to participate at this stage in WEF NMI initiative
>>>> Big development... will be interesting to see responses
>>>> *From:* Dave Farber via ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
>>>> *To:* ip <mailto:ip at listbox.com>
>>>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>>>>
>>>> A must read djf
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden at gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden at gmail.com>>
>>>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM
>>>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative
>>>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" <isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org
>>>> <mailto:isoc-trustees at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>> Cc:
>>>>
>>>> Attached is the statement that will be on the ISOC web site in 30
>>>> minutes or so.
>>>>
>>>> Once you see it there, please post it to facebook and tweet it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the very productive meeting yesterday and today!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ISOC-trustees mailing list
>>>> ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org <mailto:ISOC-trustees at elists.isoc.org>
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees
>>>>
>>>> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/853646-9b3abb6d> |
>>>> Modify
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-9b832eb9>
>>>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=853646&id_secret=853646-56396bc0&post_id=20141116224729:72B6A44A-6E0C-11E4-8FC0-902747AAF14F>
>>>> 	[Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>> ***********************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>>   www.williamdrake.org
>> ***********************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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


-- 
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/20141117/35098296/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Nov 17 16:00:34 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:30:34 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] NMI: The Caravan Has Set Out for a
 Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance
In-Reply-To: <20141117182022.257a7575@quill>
References: <20141117182022.257a7575@quill>
Message-ID: <546A61F2.4080103@itforchange.net>

as appeared in the IP Watch



http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/11/17/the-caravan-has-set-out-for-neo-liberal-capture-of-global-governance/



On Monday 17 November 2014 10:50 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> As many of you will be aware, JNC has been opposed a couple of months
> ago to the first shape in which the “NetMundial Initiative” (NMI) had
> been announced.
>
> NMI has now be redesigned in some ways, and WEF is now a bit less in the
> foreground, but the underlying ideology is still the same.
>
> For this reason, JNC is still opposed.
>
> For a more detailed explanation see “The Caravan Has Set Out for a
> Neo-liberal Capture of Global Governance” at
>
> http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC)
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/fdd9119c/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Nov 17 17:53:16 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:53:16 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL
 INITIATIVE
Message-ID: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba>

UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.

Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation.

Our letter to  the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/8f63db6c/attachment.htm>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Nov 17 18:09:22 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 23:09:22 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL
 INITIATIVE
In-Reply-To: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba>
References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <1f13dc97484b4412841023602e403d7a@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

My 2 cents, using a poker-playing metaphor:


This feels like a  case where it may be best to take a seat at the table; just in case.


Since chairs at preset tables which started without cs are more difficult to move.


Now once at the table, who is bluffing and ready to fold and walk away asap if the NMI hand is not attractive on closer examination; and who sees this as  either a big deal or a waste of time - need not be clear in this zero stage.?


So I'll cautiously say why not do the CSCG thing.


Especially since the I*groups save ICANN, and JNC are taking a pass this time or at this stage.  And oh yeah Rousseff was just reelected; whatever her Petrobras headaches it likely won't hurt to have a BRIC head of state as a patron of...the art of this next game? : )


Lee



________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:53 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE

UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.

Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation.

Our letter to  the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141117/f96d1e78/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Nov 17 19:11:33 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:11:33 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial
 Initiative
In-Reply-To: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net>
References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com>

http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan

Statement issued by the Just Net Coalition 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141117/8c914e86/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Nov 17 19:37:44 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:37:44 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial
 Initiative
In-Reply-To: <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com>
References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org>

Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the NETmundial Initiative. 

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

> On Nov 17, 2014, at 6:11 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan
> 
> Statement issued by the Just Net Coalition
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141117/c96b2c0d/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Nov 17 22:53:37 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:53:37 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Message-ID: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>

By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case.  All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently.

Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been expressed pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.

So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet.  Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org.

So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141117/6d9780ab/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 18 00:12:34 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:42:34 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL
 INITIATIVE
In-Reply-To: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba>
References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.
> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group 
> (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under 
> consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and 
> Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in 
> the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom 
> up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional 
> Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still 
> under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with 
> sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on 
> participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already 
> determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for 
> clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for 
> determining civil society representatives before making any final 
> decisions on participation.

Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by the 
concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS nominations, or 
something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in taking that 
impression and making it public... I think you need to make the facts 
such more clear and transparent about what is happening within the CSCG, 
what decisions and actions it takes and so on... parminder

> Our letter to  the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way 
> signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision 
> on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to 
> participate in the NMI process.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/d2182b42/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Nov 18 00:37:22 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:37:22 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL
 INITIATIVE
In-Reply-To: <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net>
References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba>

Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is not possible for everyone to make an informed decision.  Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant factors as regards considering involvement for others.

Ian

From: parminder 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE


On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

  UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.

  Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions on participation.

Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is happening within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so on... parminder 



  Our letter to  the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to participate in the NMI process.


   

____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/70e727d9/attachment.htm>

From dave at difference.com.au  Sat Nov  1 08:18:39 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:18:39 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)
In-Reply-To: <F21552BD-3CEB-4325-835A-3EAE46CDF655@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <DA5BCF87-F566-4BDF-A68B-8E24E5E52CC6@difference.com.au> <B6BDCC55-EDDE-4D11-B55F-6B0CC09A90F2@theglobaljournal.net> <F5AF7148-4A7A-422D-94E7-13717F39ADDE@difference.com.au> <F21552BD-3CEB-4325-835A-3EAE46CDF655@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <9ED1A1F2-DEF4-4984-B6AB-B7D36865753E@difference.com.au>


On 1 Nov 2014, at 7:35 pm, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Enjoy your week-end David.
> 
> This morning, under a beautiful sun I did my "marché" to pick up a few fresh veggies and fruits. Now going into my cooking time for the upcoming week
> - Cheesecake à ma façon (more New Yorker than Geneva-style)
> - Ratatouille with love
> - Soupe de potiron à la Bocuse (Lyon isn't far away).

	Sounds delicious. As my wife is away, I had a simply meal for one of salmon and vegetables. 

> Then, I'll be hunting fox up in the surrounding mountains with my son Ernie.
	
	Not my thing. 

> Will breath and think of why Democracy is still my best bet. And why I cherish it so deeply whoever are its good and bad representatives. "First of all, Democracy must endure". From SF, to Delhi and Kobane, all public major concern are best served by trust you confer to others in order to counter the invisible (if not natural) hands of the powerfuls and giants.

	I would hope all of us cherish democracy - where we differ is I don't see democracy, broadly considered, as in conflict with multi-stakeholderism. 
	And I do feel strongly that countering the hands of the powerful and giants is much easier if they let you in the room. 

> That is part of the democratic game and constant fragile challenge. IG needs a lot of rebalancing I would say when it comes to its public policy concerns. And JNC is a courageous voice that we are lucky to have around the table in order to shake the asymmetric MS house.

	I certainly agree that it is good to have the debate at the level of principles.
	Regards

		David
> 
> JC
> 
> Le 1 nov. 2014 à 12:15, David Cake a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> On 1 Nov 2014, at 6:56 pm, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi David,
>>> 
>>> The bestbits subscribers awaken this morning  all felt that you had something to deliver. So many emails!! :-)
>> 
>> 	The result of a quiet saturday here, I'm afraid. 
>> 
>>>  Personally, I welcome one long email, by opposition to chorizo's slices that sometimes make it hard to distinguish between facts, principles, assumptions, misleading characterizations, personal rant...
>> 
>> 	To quote Walt Whitman, I contain multitudes. 
>> 
>> 	And I'm afraid, like many people from the early internet era, I have a strong tendency to inline reply in email, which I understand makes me somewhat old-fashioned now that top quoting is the dominant posting style, sorry about the chorizo effect. 
>> 
>>> I also welcome the fact that most of what you elaborate comes from an ICANN insider's reflection, in addition to fox, pigs, chicken... Old timers jokes about the natural asymmetry of life... For me, a good joke starts with a MS status-quoer who thinks he is the perfect example of a respectful dignitary of Participative Democracy thanks to his MS dogma (the next best step of Democracy).
>> 
>> 	I would never claim to be the perfect example of a respectful dignitary. Though I hope I can manage it now and then. 
>> 
>>> Of course, it is like pigs, fox and chicken, that story is just a joke for new comers with a fresh vision of what should be a fair and democratic way of governing the global and transnational Internet, by opposition to what it is today thanks to...
>>> 
>>> Will read you thoroughly.
>> 
>> 	I appreciate the sentiment, though I certainly believe we all have our right to appropriate attention conservation. 
>> 
>> 	Regards
>> 		David
>> 
>>> 
>>> JC
>>> A proud JNC founder and member
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 1 nov. 2014 à 11:21, David Cake a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> 	So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation). 
>>>> 	
>>>> 	And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong
>>>> 	
>>>> 	The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF. 
>>>> 	
>>>> 	So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. 
>>>> 	And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text. 
>>>> 	Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures.
>>>> It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more  being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable. 
>>>> 	
>>>> 	It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not. 
>>>> 
>>>> 	So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes. 
>>>> The TL:DR summary - 
>>>> Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. 
>>>> Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And 
>>>> Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures. 
>>>> 
>>>> And my impression is that the JNC position:
>>>> - does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation. 
>>>> - favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates. 
>>>> - favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes. 
>>>> I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. 
>>>> 
>>>> I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful. 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/1b3c59ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/1b3c59ee/attachment.sig>

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Tue Nov 18 01:11:07 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:41:07 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL
 INITIATIVE
In-Reply-To: <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba>
References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba>
	<546AD542.20702@itforchange.net>
	<7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0GOkLeejVAEYgdrqM3M-0pk0mCF=AyjVOpwynFpfisMng@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ian,

Just Net Coalition (JNC) has already determined it will not participate,
> other members are waiting for clarity on our proposal

​

> there are differing opinions within civil society about this



​If the C
ivil Society
​really like the Civil Society ​
Coordination Group
​ to be a Representative around the table, or be involved in the selection
of Civil Society representatives, then Just Net Coalition's position could
be considered rather rushed. How would NETmundial or any other initiative
go by the position of CSCG as representative when there are other groups
that want to have their own position?

Also, if there are some disagreements with the NETmundial process, apart
from writing to the Secretariat and the Transition council, it might ease
matters if you directly reach out to Steve Crocker / Fadi / Harmut and
others at CGI to sort out differences, rather than rush to conclude the
differences as hard differences. I feel that NETmundial would be receptive
enough if there is a single Civil Society opinion.

Sivasubramanian M​
​



​​



On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Not really Parminder. As you know
> ​​
> there are differing opinions within civil society about this,
>
and without clarity as regards how an involvement with NMI would work –
> information we are seeking – it is not possible for everyone to make an
> informed decision.  Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain
> a right of veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those
> who oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant
> factors as regards considering involvement for others.
>
> Ian
>
>  *From:* parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET
> MUNDIAL INITIATIVE
>
>
> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>  UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.
>
> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group
> (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under
> consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and Transitional
> Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in the selection of
> civil society representatives in a coordinated bottom up manner, rather
> than these decisions being made by the Transitional Council (which has no
> civil society representation). This is still under discussion; however, we
> do not yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to
> be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC)
> has already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting
> for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure for
> determining civil society representatives before making any final decisions
> on participation.
>
>
> Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by the
> concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS nominations, or
> something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in taking that impression
> and making it public... I think you need to make the facts such more clear
> and transparent about what is happening within the CSCG, what decisions and
> actions it takes and so on... parminder
>
>
> Our letter to  the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way
> signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision on
> whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to
> participate in the NMI process.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/9b488bce/attachment.htm>

From imran at IGFPAK.org  Tue Nov 18 01:22:07 2014
From: imran at IGFPAK.org (Imran Ahmed SHAH)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:22:07 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative -
 RFC
In-Reply-To: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
Message-ID: <013201d002f7$fbd45a40$f37d0ec0$@IGFPAK.org>

Thanks Jeremy for the clarification of BestBits position. 

 

 

Best Regards

 

Imran Ahmed Shah

\

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:54 AM
To: Best Bits
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

 

By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just
Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial
Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best
Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group
(CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian Peter's clarifying message
setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not*
the case.  All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much
assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat
(ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than
choosing civil society representatives independently.

 

Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about
whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been expressed
pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the
NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give
for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the
initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single
central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist
critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style
bogeyman.

 

So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should
bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply
conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con
arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the
Internet.  Also note that a few civil society representatives, including
Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the
carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org.

 

So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, please
do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.

 

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/de33ac11/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Tue Nov 18 02:49:04 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:49:04 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative -
 RFC
In-Reply-To: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>

Jeremy,

I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, as I see no such thing in the JNC statement - and would feel most uncomfortable would it be so. I would say JNC brings some interesting and documented facts and thoughtful perspective, even though the BestBits is never either quoted or named in this statement. As per your email recommendation having not yet shared my views on this WEF/ICANN/CGIbr topic, here are some thoughts.

The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members:
- Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)
- McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council"
- Eileen Donahoe, former US Ambassador at the Human Rights Council, now at HRW: "There is an urgent need for new thinking about distributed, multistakeholder governance"
- Virgilio Almeida, CGIbr, National Secretary for IT policies, Brazil: "... A platform that is going to be oriented to solve Internet Governance Issues..."
- Richard Samans, Managing Director, WEF: "Internet Governance issues are at the top in our industry community conversations, and this is no surprise as it has become one of the hottest political issues of our times... well beyond the technical issues our partner, ICANN, has been dealing for many many years."
- Fadi Chehadé: "For the first time in Sao Paulo, the Internet community agreed on a set of common principles and a roadmap in order to energize our work together, addressing the technical, and more important now, non technical issues".

So the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative seems to be a place where every one can have his own impression of achieving his own dream. Cool. More seriously, the 750 or so corporations members of the WEF are not jumping in the Sao Paulo legacy for nothing - their membership fees are expensive enough to get a return on investment. It would be naive to think they come to the beauty of discussing trends and fashion in IG conversation. Of course, a few cynics might enjoy playing poker, even though, and I appreciate Lee's questioning on that, there is little doubt that nobody will ever jump out of that elitist club once onboard.

Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy (overlooking the Leman Lake and located in the most wealthy suburbs of Geneva), should for once, Civil Society shows some unity, strength and courage assuming its best bets are ethical values, if not pragmatic democratic values - and in that regard, acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.

By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
- what are the concrete points you do not feel comfortable with regarding the initiative - reference to your own critic and personal deeply conflicted approach of it. It would be fair to remind us on that. 
- how will the BB list will proceed to come to a conclusion between pro and cons?
- what is your understanding of what is the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative about to concretely be? A venture to fund specific programs or projects? A coordination office for existing IG related institutions or entities? A driver for what Chehahé sees as a Sao Paulo roadmap? Do you have a link for this roadmap to share with us?
- which other civil society representatives have endorsed the initiative according to your knowledge apart from CGIbr and HRW? Not sure Afilias and CIRA are to be considered as civil society as they are in the registry business.
- how can we make a difference between an exaggerated critic and not an exaggerated critic? In other words, how far can we be critical of that initiative? How can one critic of the initiative not be considered as specious, as so far ISOC and JNC have failed in your eyes to express "fair" critics.
- are you in agreement with the naming of the WEF/ICANN/CIGbr initiative: The NetMundial Initiative, a "continuation of Sao Paulo to implement the roadmap with CGIbr in the leadership position, ICANN being a partner on a lower level, and the WEF a collaborator" according to Wolfgang Keinwächter (ICANN) see email Nov 4 *.

Answers would certainly be helpful in order to have a fruitful conversation in this thread.

Thanks 
JC


* WK Full quote : "My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA."

Wolfgang






Le 18 nov. 2014 à 04:53, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :

> By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case.  All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently.
> 
> Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been expressed pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.
> 
> So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet.  Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org.
> 
> So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/8bdbcf53/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 18 03:08:59 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:38:59 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL
 INITIATIVE
In-Reply-To: <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba>
References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <546AFE9B.2060502@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 18 November 2014 11:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within 
> civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an 
> involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is 
> not possible for everyone to make an informed decision.

I see (1) readiness in general to go with the NM Initiative, given 
conditions of CS nomination are met, and (2) actual process and 
agreement (or not) of CSCG's role in CS nominees, as two different issues.

JNC statement only say that most CS group seem to have agreed to (1). Is 
this incorrect....

> Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of veto 
> over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who oppose 
> involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant factors 
> as regards considering involvement for others.

Exactly, that is my point. So, obviously, other CS groups do not oppose 
the NMI as such, other than perhaps possible differences on CS 
nominations to its coordination committee. What we say in JNC's 
statement, and the note 4 explaining the basis of our assertion is very 
clear

"**For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by ... (so and 
so organisations) .., the chair of the Civil Society Coordination Group 
(CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to organize a 
selection process for civil society representatives for NMI's 
coordination committee..."

Is this statement untrue?

Meanwhile, since it was an official letter written by you as CSCG head 
to WEF/ NMI , on basis on the above mentioned positive views of 
concerned CS organisations, why do you not just make that  letter public 
and people can make their own judgement.

We obviously cannot write our statements exactly, as for instance Jeremy 
would want us to.... However, we write what we write responsibly and 
with full justification. Please make the mentioned letter public to NMI/ 
WEF, and, as always, we are ready for a full discussion on this issue of 
who has expressed what view, and undertook what actions, and 
implications there of.

It is  really our not problem is some of the CS members might now be re 
considering their views on the NMI issue - in face of the recent 
statements, or otherwise... As you will see from the text, this was 
precisely the purpose of JNC's statement, and we would be happy to see 
movement in the direction of achieving this purpose. We really want CS 
groups to reconsider their position and refuse to endorse the NM 
Initiative.

parminder
> Ian
> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET 
> MUNDIAL INITIATIVE
> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.
>> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group 
>> (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is still under 
>> consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat and 
>> Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating role in 
>> the selection of civil society representatives in a coordinated 
>> bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made by the 
>> Transitional Council (which has no civil society representation). 
>> This is still under discussion; however, we do not yet have a 
>> proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to be able to 
>> decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition (JNC) has 
>> already determined it will not participate, other members are waiting 
>> for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and inclusive procedure 
>> for determining civil society representatives before making any final 
>> decisions on participation.
>
> Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by 
> the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS 
> nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in 
> taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to 
> make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is happening 
> within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so on... 
> parminder
>
>> Our letter to  the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no way 
>> signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final decision 
>> on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection process or to 
>> participate in the NMI process.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/de374105/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Nov 18 03:12:47 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:42:47 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL
 INITIATIVE
In-Reply-To: <546AFE9B.2060502@itforchange.net>
References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> <546AFE9B.2060502@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <546AFF7F.5050409@itforchange.net>


This is exactly like, one party proposes marriage, and the other show 
great enthusiasm and starts discussing wedding arrangements, and at a 
later point says, well, of course, I never really meant to say yes to 
the proposal. .. parminder


On Tuesday 18 November 2014 01:38 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 11:07 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Not really Parminder. As you know there are differing opinions within 
>> civil society about this, and without clarity as regards how an 
>> involvement with NMI would work – information we are seeking – it is 
>> not possible for everyone to make an informed decision.
>
> I see (1) readiness in general to go with the NM Initiative, given 
> conditions of CS nomination are met, and (2) actual process and 
> agreement (or not) of CSCG's role in CS nominees, as two different issues.
>
> JNC statement only say that most CS group seem to have agreed to (1). 
> Is this incorrect....
>
>> Such matters as whether the NMI would want to maintain a right of 
>> veto over selections suggested by CSCG would not matter to those who 
>> oppose involvement under any circumstances, but would be significant 
>> factors as regards considering involvement for others.
>
> Exactly, that is my point. So, obviously, other CS groups do not 
> oppose the NMI as such, other than perhaps possible differences on CS 
> nominations to its coordination committee. What we say in JNC's 
> statement, and the note 4 explaining the basis of our assertion is 
> very clear
>
> "**For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by ... (so 
> and so organisations) .., the chair of the Civil Society Coordination 
> Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to 
> organize a selection process for civil society representatives for 
> NMI's coordination committee..."
>
> Is this statement untrue?
>
> Meanwhile, since it was an official letter written by you as CSCG head 
> to WEF/ NMI , on basis on the above mentioned positive views of 
> concerned CS organisations, why do you not just make that letter 
> public and people can make their own judgement.
>
> We obviously cannot write our statements exactly, as for instance 
> Jeremy would want us to.... However, we write what we write 
> responsibly and with full justification. Please make the mentioned 
> letter public to NMI/ WEF, and, as always, we are ready for a full 
> discussion on this issue of who has expressed what view, and undertook 
> what actions, and implications there of.
>
> It is  really our not problem is some of the CS members might now be 
> re considering their views on the NMI issue - in face of the recent 
> statements, or otherwise... As you will see from the text, this was 
> precisely the purpose of JNC's statement, and we would be happy to see 
> movement in the direction of achieving this purpose. We really want CS 
> groups to reconsider their position and refuse to endorse the NM 
> Initiative.
>
> parminder
>> Ian
>> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:12 PM
>> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN 
>> NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE
>> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 04:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>> UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE.
>>> Please note that Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination 
>>> Group (CSCG) participation in the new Net Mundial initiative is 
>>> still under consideration. CSCG has written to the NMI Secretariat 
>>> and Transitional Council suggesting that it play a co-ordinating 
>>> role in the selection of civil society representatives in a 
>>> coordinated bottom up manner, rather than these decisions being made 
>>> by the Transitional Council (which has no civil society 
>>> representation). This is still under discussion; however, we do not 
>>> yet have a proposal with sufficient clarity for member coalitions to 
>>> be able to decide on participation or not. While Just Net Coalition 
>>> (JNC) has already determined it will not participate, other members 
>>> are waiting for clarity on our proposal for a bottom up and 
>>> inclusive procedure for determining civil society representatives 
>>> before making any final decisions on participation.
>>
>> Does this not constitute an in principle agreement to participate by 
>> the concerned CS actors, if NMI guys agrees to CSCG doing CS 
>> nominations, or something close to that... Further, Is Fadi wrong in 
>> taking that impression and making it public... I think you need to 
>> make the facts such more clear and transparent about what is 
>> happening within the CSCG, what decisions and actions it takes and so 
>> on... parminder
>>
>>> Our letter to  the NMI Secretariat and Transitional Council in no 
>>> way signifies that any or all CS organisations have made a final 
>>> decision on whether to engage with the NMI in a formal selection 
>>> process or to participate in the NMI process.
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/f53ad716/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Nov 18 03:15:38 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:15:38 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Second African School on IG
Message-ID: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org>

Dear all

Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be
there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which
will start in Mauritius later this week.

Best

Anriette

http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/

-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette esterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/e10df241/attachment.htm>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Tue Nov 18 03:23:21 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:23:21 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Second African School on IG
In-Reply-To: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org>
References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6g84+iXxpj2O08kBTSDdqwnR1LQ7kvBwZe6sn-P7m2aEA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Anriette,

I will be around at MU and would try to pop-in.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 18 Nov 2014 09:14, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

>  Dear all
>
> Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be
> there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which
> will start in Mauritius later this week.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
> http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/
>
>  --
> `````````````````````````````````
> anriette esterhuysen
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/7d539973/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Nov 18 05:31:17 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:31:17 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative -
 RFC
In-Reply-To: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
Message-ID: <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba>

At this point of time discussions are going on in a number of forums as regards participation, not just here; and it would be helpful if the debate was about whether to participate or not, not about who said what when. 

As an aid to this, and perhaps to focus discussion a little, here is a brief summary of some of the arguments for and against that I have seen advanced. Not a complete list, but perhaps this might help some people to understand that other people have perspectives that differ from their own. i would urge people to add their own perspectives to these so that an informed decision is made.



FOR INVOLVEMENT

With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few.

The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out in practice, would create a credible and open initiative 

There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us forward on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions

Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society



AGAINST INVOLVEMENT

The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance and this could become that

ISOC has withdrawn 

Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society

This initiative has a track record of poor communication



Ian Peter


From: Jeremy Malcolm 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:53 PM
To: Best Bits 
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case.  All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently.

Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been expressed pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.

So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet.  Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org.

So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/2bed5e0f/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Nov 18 08:04:06 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:04:06 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
 WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org>
References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net>
	<143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com>
	<915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org>
Message-ID: <20141118140406.036b546d@quill>

Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote:

> Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for
> wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on
> civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the NETmundial
> Initiative.   

Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me
quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused of
having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon
which were calling “the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global
governance”, it would in our view be a huge step forward if the support
for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly admit
and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a very
serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when actions
are taken which are in their effect supportive of this “caravan”, but
where those who take or explicitly support such action get away with
simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that it didn't
happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for any of the
concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to consequently
change their stance.)

Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful
about...

The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and
which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads in
full as follows:

  For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC,
  BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination
  Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to
  organize a selection process for civil society representatives for
  NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition
  (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it
  goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association
  for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo
  Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial
  Stakeholders Group (NCSG).

For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that
some “sections of civil society currently active in the area of Internet
... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and other
elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative”.

I maintain that the concerned letter

* is indeed very positive, and that

* it offers to organize a selection process for civil society
  representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that

* it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental
  concept of NMI and the invitation to participate.

This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that
also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding
the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: “Fadi, praised the
letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI
council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva”

But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be
given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves
on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in
principle of NMI.

After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to
effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that
what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events.

JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in the
statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on the
basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding letter is
sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We would
certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated version
of the statement.

So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI:

"""
    Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard,

    RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL

    I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil
    Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for
    nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial
    Initiative.

    I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a
    “coalition of coalitions” of the major civil society groups working
    on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a
    co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to
    making civil society appointments to outside bodies.

    Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet
    Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications,
    Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non
    Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands
    of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society
    members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial
    initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as
    nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group
    renewal.

    A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last
    week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to
    collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the
    internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong
    commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process
    in bringing this into action.

    We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for
    nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative
    for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our
    concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes
    be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination
    process states, “formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by
    the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the
    São Paulo NETmundial meeting”.

    We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to
    ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in
    selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and
    effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this
    end in mind.

    SUGGESTION ONE

    Although we could go through a separate nomination process and
    forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the
    current situation a more workable process would be to encourage
    suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but
    then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our
    recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on
    circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region,
    or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region,
    to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder
    groups.

    We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow
    this process, we would need to receive from you full details of
    each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to
    give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date;
    ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving
    such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than
    necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be
    maintained.

    SUGGESTION TWO

    Additionally, we could have a representative work with you  (the
    transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and
    writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one
    of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to
    complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to
    ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback
    on this additional option as well.

    TIME CONSTRAINTS

    If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would
    need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this
    manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please
    if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be
    able to respond.

    We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful
    collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual
    concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and
    effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and
    look forward to working with you to achieve this.

    Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

    Sincerely,

    Ian Peter
    Independent Chair
"""

Greetings,
Norbert

From dave at difference.com.au  Tue Nov 18 08:59:52 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:59:52 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative -
 RFC
In-Reply-To: <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <0776B4E0-B97C-44EC-B550-DAC31369AA71@difference.com.au>

I think Ian's summary is a good one. 

I think there are good reasons to consider a fora that tries to achieve some of the goals that NMI is directed at - we need ways to tackle fora outside the technical remit of most of the I* orgs, and transforming the IGF into that fora seems unlikely. 

I would add to your list of reasons against that the selection process for representatives currently seems unclear and still problematic, as NMI are, as I understand it, still reserving to themselves the ability to appoint some representatives against CSCG recommendations. 

David

On 18 Nov 2014, at 6:31 pm, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> At this point of time discussions are going on in a number of forums as regards participation, not just here; and it would be helpful if the debate was about whether to participate or not, not about who said what when.
>  
> As an aid to this, and perhaps to focus discussion a little, here is a brief summary of some of the arguments for and against that I have seen advanced. Not a complete list, but perhaps this might help some people to understand that other people have perspectives that differ from their own. i would urge people to add their own perspectives to these so that an informed decision is made.
>  
>  
>  
> FOR INVOLVEMENT
> 
> With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few.
> 
> The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out in practice, would create a credible and open initiative
> 
> There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us forward on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions
> 
> Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society
> 
>  
> AGAINST INVOLVEMENT
> 
> The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance and this could become that
> 
> ISOC has withdrawn
> 
> Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society
> 
> This initiative has a track record of poor communication
> 
>  
> Ian Peter
> 
>  
> From: Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:53 PM
> To: Best Bits
> Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>  
> By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case.  All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently.
>  
> Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been expressed pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.
>  
> So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet.  Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org.
>  
> So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.
>  
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>  
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>  
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/ce3fb2a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/ce3fb2a9/attachment.sig>

From dave at difference.com.au  Sat Nov  1 08:19:35 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:19:35 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] Principles (warning - long)
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEJJCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Message-ID: <B98F7055-F75B-4336-9119-0EB5D3AAA2B1@difference.com.au>

FWDed as requested

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch>
> Subject: RE: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)
> Date: 1 November 2014 7:35:00 pm AWST
> To: "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>, "David Cake" <dave at difference.com.au>
> Cc: "Best Bits" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <Forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> Reply-To: <rhill at hill-a.ch>
> 
> Dear David,
> 
> Since I don't subscribe to BestBits, I would appreciate it if you would
> forward this message to that list.
> 
> I will reply here only to small portions of David's message below.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
>> Le 1 nov. 2014 à 11:21, David Cake a écrit :
>> 
> 
> SNIP
> 
>> Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of
> non-transparency
>> such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high
> priority for
>> the JNC,
> 
> The JNC has explicitly called for the ITU to be fully transparent, both by
> co-signing a call to that effect from multiple organizations, and in its own
> statement to the ITU.  See
> 
> http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014.pdf
> 
> and
> 
> https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/open-civil-society-letter-transparency-itu-pleni
> po
> 
>> considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era,
> etc.
> 
> Anybody who has followed ITU in any detail knows that I (Richard Hill) have
> worked diligently since 2001 to make the ITU more transparent.
> 
> SNIP
> 
>> It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and
> transparency,
>> are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the
> outcome
>> of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable
> 
> I would say desirable and necessary.
> 
> But that does not imply that they should be able to veto decisions.
> 
> If you cannot make decisions that industry does not like, they you won't
> have seat belts in cars, prohibitions on cigarette advertising, etc.
> 
> SNIP
> 
>> And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision
> making.
> 
> That's probably where we differ, depending on how one defines consensus.
> 
> If it is unanimity, then consensus can lead to paralysis.  Or even to giving
> private companies veto power over things like safety standards.
> 
>> It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact
>> definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its
> processes,
>> and there are several more  being used in the IG space), and some may
>> be more practical or desirable than others.
> 
> Yes.  Norbert Bollow and I have sketched out some ideas, see the last part
> of the paper at:
> 
>  http://www.apig.ch/best_practices.pdf
> 
> But I agree with you that working out the details is a non-trivial exercise,
> and will require some thinking.  And no, I don't think that the IETF's
> version of "rough consensus" is suitable for public policy matters.
> 
> SNIP
> 
>> I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously
> were
>> OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit
>> to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency,
> 
> See above for the JNC position regarding ITU transparency.
> 
>> Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement
>> of existing fora would be useful.
> 
> Yes.  I already invited Anne to cooperate to draft a document that captures
> the areas on which we agree, and also the areas on which we disagree.  But I
> don't recall any agreement regarding how to proceed to draft such a
> document.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/00993747/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/00993747/attachment.sig>

From dave at difference.com.au  Tue Nov 18 09:02:57 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:02:57 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Second African School on IG
In-Reply-To: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org>
References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au>

I hope it goes well, I very much enjoyed being a very small part of it in 2013. 

David

On 18 Nov 2014, at 4:15 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which will start in Mauritius later this week.
> 
> Best
> 
> Anriette
> 
> http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/
> 
>  -- 
> `````````````````````````````````
> anriette esterhuysen
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
> anriette at apc.org
> www.apc.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/23c8ce9f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/23c8ce9f/attachment.sig>

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Nov 18 09:18:24 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:18:24 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Second African School on IG
In-Reply-To: <5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au>
References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> <5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <546B5530.4060405@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks David.. and you will be missed. It was good to have so many
people from NCUC there last year. I will also really miss having Carlos
Afonso.. the participants really enjoyed learning from the Brazilian
experience.

On the other hand I am really pleased that we have such a strong
contingent of African faculty and resource people joining us this year.

We often talk about building capacity in IG, and I generally get
irritated when it is used in ways that I find politically patronising
(when used as a way of dealing with developing country gripes).

We don't spend nearly enough time, either as civil society, or as
Africans - in this instance - acknowledging how much capacity we already
have.

Anriette



On 18/11/2014 16:02, David Cake wrote:
> I hope it goes well, I very much enjoyed being a very small part of it in 2013.
>
> David
>
> On 18 Nov 2014, at 4:15 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
<mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be
there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which
will start in Mauritius later this week.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>> http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/
>>
>> --
>> `````````````````````````````````
>> anriette esterhuysen
>> executive director
>> association for progressive communications
>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>> anriette at apc.org
>> www.apc.org
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUa1UwAAoJEH1pB9ymsbAuFFYP/2i2nLaURVRXWGKgqhrINPED
ifXVROcaxI9g48jhiCJRFTg9QsbtoK2vm4Ar3p5I0N59t1ZOu1DiTGYaRhf0XCnN
0Rh5POAuBqlFK0SB2zankTn4RItQ0+VFAx9Xoe8CTnShrcMNAiJuctYqLh/NFSXG
UgjpggveNLP7CcZRJpJHHO/Oy22BZTl/TSBXmCgN2slrUFpeQFOrYtCZDPY+G5lG
85rexPW/0powDM4pFago+5FrkmkQfD86thoWoteD8pIUsjyHjzsIC+SfkvO9RvWk
xCNjrnl5mVVqM3Ey0mRXqztk+4w73X8MjmYM3T9VCkDbinXqCW08nSlOSpZ83rPJ
SWMPyaMER0UWqGT8mtrW2QfUimYFLeVsAfTIwYM1zDgG3NWy5P0XKv15Q1Ta1w1k
4gqWjCKM5WSLMx0u7xnwgYDtY3kWLW6/ilPNAlgyu20VWEQOcC3V8dGFiQk37+8t
26eklK43zZWrRRX+qH9m5fzbE5WHUTE0TlxJGeM8hrt0B/k6rC3bqSvyMlrNQD2b
UnnDmrA1fvS+jJdZRLm/YlvCxtSFhn6mbFyP34Fwz1ArMYbxjarFMXLUu6S9OJsy
Gp9gAcuCZpAu98PWj8N5ZMikVJFWpURq90TRt6UUDufuEE/MjGvkjPXrkvr0+3JO
Y+CV2VsL9FHYmQk6QKhX
=Qxxa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/4d889a39/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue Nov 18 09:28:07 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:28:07 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <20141118140406.036b546d@quill>
References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill>
Message-ID: <B6012CFD-EBC8-47DE-819C-F8F471EEC78E@eff.org>

On Nov 18, 2014, at 7:04 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying.

No, you've been accused of being a dick.  If JNC wants to further isolate itself from other civil society factions, cementing the perception that it can't work with anyone else who doesn't share its political ideology, then you're going about it in exactly the right way.  Screwing your civil society colleagues has been JNC modus operandi from day 1.  Personally it's not the way I prefer to work.

Anyway, I think your response tells us all we need to know.  Non-apology accepted.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::


From pimienta at funredes.org  Tue Nov 18 09:54:42 2014
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:54:42 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on  WEF's
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <B6012CFD-EBC8-47DE-819C-F8F471EEC78E@eff.org>
References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net>
 <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com>
 <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org>
 <20141118140406.036b546d@quill>
 <B6012CFD-EBC8-47DE-819C-F8F471EEC78E@eff.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.135.1642081880.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

At 10:28 18/11/2014, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>No, you've been accused of being a dick.  If JNC wants to further 
>isolate itself from other civil society factions, cementing the 
>perception that it can't work with anyone else who doesn't share its 
>political ideology, then you're going about it in exactly the right 
>way.  Screwing your civil society colleagues has been JNC modus 
>operandi from day 1.  Personally it's not the way I prefer to work.

As one of the 33 CSOs members of JNC (plus 24 individual members) you 
are adressing in your mail, after checking in a dictionnary the 
meaning of "being a dick" (an expession I read for the first time on 
my life in a discussion list), I want to insure you I do prefer to be 
considered as a "dick" by people like you who pretend to impose the 
"way they prefer to work" (as well as the way they prefer to express, 
which is an obvious part of the way they prefer to work), than enter 
in contradiction with the way I perceive what is just and correct as 
a civil society player. You are making my endorsment to the reference 
statement still stronger.

This personal reaction to your mail has not been coordinated nor 
discussed with any of my JNC colleagues.
The same with my decision to unsubscribe from the bestbit listserv 
after sending that mail.

Daniel Pimienta
FUNREDES  


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Nov 18 10:13:54 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:13:54 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's
 Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <B6012CFD-EBC8-47DE-819C-F8F471EEC78E@eff.org>
References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <B6012CFD-EBC8-47DE-819C-F8F471EEC78E@eff.org>
Message-ID: <178e01d00342$454810a0$cfd831e0$@gmail.com>

Jeremy,

 

Once you have recovered from your hissyfit I'm sure that you and everyone
else reading this with a fair mind will realize that it is you who should be
apologizing to the JNC.  

 

You seem to have conveniently "forgotten" the letter sent only two days ago
by Ian on your and other's in the CSCG's behalf which appears to my
untrained eyes to be a very positive endorsement and agreement with the NMI
along with a request  that negotiations be entered into over some details of
process.  This letter was prepared one can only assume with your and others
of the CSCG (excluding of course the JNC)'s active involvement and was
evidently publicly referenced by its co-recipient Fadi. Not being a lawyer I
would however suggest that your accusation verges on slander and a public
apology would appear to be required.

 

I quote from the letter sent by Ian on behalf of the CSCG to the NMI as
circulated by Norbert (emphasis added)

 

You are aware of our concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection
processes  be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination
process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, ..

 

We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to ensure
that the civil society representation, and involvement in selection of its
representatives, is as strong, credible and effective as possible.

 

.

 

If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would need to
have your confirmation as to our participation in this  manner fairly
quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please if possible get back
to us this week, or advise when you will be  able to respond.

 

We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful collaborative
initiative to address some important issues of mutual concern. We would like
to see a strong, widely endorsed, and effective civil society presence in
developing this initiative, and look forward to working with you to achieve
this.

 

I could be wrong but there doesn't seem to be a lot of ambiguity in this
quite enthusiastic endorsement of the overall NMI.

 

Presumably you know how and where to send your apology.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 6:28 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's
Net Mundial Initiative

 

On Nov 18, 2014, at 7:04 AM, Norbert Bollow < <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>
nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> 

> After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying.

 

No, you've been accused of being a dick.  If JNC wants to further isolate
itself from other civil society factions, cementing the perception that it
can't work with anyone else who doesn't share its political ideology, then
you're going about it in exactly the right way.  Screwing your civil society
colleagues has been JNC modus operandi from day 1.  Personally it's not the
way I prefer to work.

 

Anyway, I think your response tells us all we need to know.  Non-apology
accepted.

 

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

 <https://eff.org> https://eff.org

 <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org> jmalcolm at eff.org

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/bf9d1577/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Nov 18 10:25:10 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:25:10 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
 WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <CAPcSPKXqRcdXKk3oKX521iy4ca3xKR7AA+Vruj0BD7EL90Yotw@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <179f01d00343$d7a21440$86e63cc0$@gmail.com>

All presumably under the gentlest but strongest and tightest control from
the master spiders sitting at the centre of the web in Washington and
Geneva.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 6:09 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
WEF's Net Mundial Initiative

I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas
into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo
was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet
Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet
Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions.
Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force.
NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms
and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet
Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges.


Wolfgang

    


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe
Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
 
Hello all,

My question becomes increasingly growing:
1. What happens to the NetMundial?
2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil?
3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive
selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles.
I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether
we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each country
because everything is based on some national issues is our continental
location.
All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with
all its consequences.
What we want exactly?
With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion;
for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again
and again discriminatory policies.
Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that
many plurality of concepts also need?

Baudouin


2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:

> Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote:
>
> > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for 
> > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on 
> > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the 
> > NETmundial Initiative.
>
> Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me 
> quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused 
> of having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon 
> which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global 
> governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the 
> support for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly 
> admit and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a 
> very serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when 
> actions are taken which are in their effect supportive of this 
> "caravan", but where those who take or explicitly support such action 
> get away with simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that 
> it didn't happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for 
> any of the concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to 
> consequently change their stance.)
>
> Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful 
> about...
>
> The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and 
> which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads 
> in full as follows:
>
>   For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC,
>   BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination
>   Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to
>   organize a selection process for civil society representatives for
>   NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition
>   (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it
>   goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association
>   for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo
>   Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial
>   Stakeholders Group (NCSG).
>
> For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that 
> some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of 
> Internet ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and 
> other elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative".
>
> I maintain that the concerned letter
>
> * is indeed very positive, and that
>
> * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society
>   representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that
>
> * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental
>   concept of NMI and the invitation to participate.
>
> This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that 
> also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding 
> the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the 
> letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI 
> council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva"
>
> But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be 
> given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves 
> on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in 
> principle of NMI.
>
> After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to 
> effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that 
> what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events.
>
> JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in 
> the
> statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on 
> the basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding 
> letter is sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We 
> would certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated 
> version of the statement.
>
> So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI:
>
> """
>     Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard,
>
>     RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL
>
>     I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil
>     Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for
>     nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial
>     Initiative.
>
>     I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a
>     "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working
>     on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a
>     co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to
>     making civil society appointments to outside bodies.
>
>     Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet
>     Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications,
>     Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non
>     Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands
>     of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society
>     members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial
>     initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as
>     nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group
>     renewal.
>
>     A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last
>     week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to
>     collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the
>     internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong
>     commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process
>     in bringing this into action.
>
>     We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for
>     nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative
>     for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our
>     concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes
>     be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination
>     process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by
>     the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the
>     São Paulo NETmundial meeting".
>
>     We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to
>     ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in
>     selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and
>     effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this
>     end in mind.
>
>     SUGGESTION ONE
>
>     Although we could go through a separate nomination process and
>     forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the
>     current situation a more workable process would be to encourage
>     suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but
>     then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our
>     recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on
>     circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region,
>     or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region,
>     to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder
>     groups.
>
>     We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow
>     this process, we would need to receive from you full details of
>     each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to
>     give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date;
>     ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving
>     such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than
>     necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be
>     maintained.
>
>     SUGGESTION TWO
>
>     Additionally, we could have a representative work with you  (the
>     transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and
>     writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one
>     of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to
>     complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to
>     ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback
>     on this additional option as well.
>
>     TIME CONSTRAINTS
>
>     If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would
>     need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this
>     manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please
>     if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be
>     able to respond.
>
>     We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful
>     collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual
>     concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and
>     effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and
>     look forward to working with you to achieve this.
>
>     Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
>
>     Sincerely,
>
>     Ian Peter
>     Independent Chair
> """
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


--
*SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*


*COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC*

*ICANN/AFRALO Member*
*ISOC Member*
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr




From jac at apcwomen.org  Tue Nov 18 10:31:01 2014
From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:31:01 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva
In-Reply-To: <CALFO4-jMPhSWdZqwXcbC9K1TnO0DOxuvuOyiGWczweU9RWpKgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjwFvYan4fFqKF2L4a9T-FUdPi4c0V4KOV0W1AaUz+vkxw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAK-FJAcMrVoyv=-snbgN4RgfaeZpA+UR1t=fZcf8B5A4z2igow@mail.gmail.com>	<CAHwnKeHw3CWsX8V=rxDH4UGiYj0kLi_EfKnLQzz3Mfjt+aMe2w@mail.gmail.com>	<CALCecM-R0xySXFTNDL+vfO9PgaSNqFs2=uWoNm=7x8WyBCJ=rA@mail.gmail.com>	<1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com>	<5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> <CALFO4-jMPhSWdZqwXcbC9K1TnO0DOxuvuOyiGWczweU9RWpKgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546B6635.3010009@apcwomen.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello everyone,

Very proud to be part of a strong CS team for MAG, and looking forward
also to working with everyone. I have been travelling and jst catching
up with emails now. Tried the doodle, but it's not opening for me.
Maybe because the period has ended. Either way, am looking forward to
collaboration and discussion and working togetehr.

Best,
jac

On 14/11/2014 18:55, aida mahmutovic wrote:
> Thank you Anriette for adding me to this conversation. Please do
> count on me in the future. I look forward to our CS collaboration
> to come in stronger in next IGF.
> 
> Kind regards to all, aIDA
> 
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
> <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
> 
> Very good idea to have a meeting Bill. I have responded to your 
> Doodle poll.
> 
> Also copying Aida Mahmutovic from One World South East Europe and 
> John Dada from Fantsuam Foundation and Jac sm Kee who are also new 
> on the MAG.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> On 14/11/2014 10:54, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Adding the governance list.
>> 
>> To Ginger’s point: First, please not that tomorrow 15 November
>> is the last day to do online registration for the IGF open 
>> consultation and MAG meeting.  After that, getting in may
>> require you to arm wrestle the ITU’s praetorian guard. 
>> https://intgovforum.org/cms/index.php?option=com_jevents&task=icalrepeat.detail&evid=30&Itemid=28&year=2014&month=12&day=01&title=igf-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting&uid=0f4d62692449d836cd076da879ff1f11
>> 
>> 
>> Second, Lea has suggested that retiring and incoming CS MAG 
>> members get together for some updating and brainstorming on the 
>> current state of play in MAG.  I think this would be a really
>> good idea, as it has often been difficult in recent years to get
>> the CS contingent to strategically collaborate, and we have an 
>> opportunity to reboot efforts here.  This would be particularly 
>> important with respect to this meeting, which should
>> significantly impact whether the IGF takes seriously the
>> NETmundial mandate with regard to strengthening the process:
>> 
>> /Improvements should include inter-alia: a. Improved outcomes:
>> Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of
>> providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy
>> options; b. Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; c.
>> Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, 
>> including through a broadened donor base, is essential; d. The
>> IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions
>> between meetings through intersessional dialogues. A strengthened
>> IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing both long
>> standing and emerging issues with a view to contributing to the
>> identification of possible ways to address them./
>> 
>> Some of these were key objectives that the IGC promoted since
>> 2005 before interest in the IGF dissipated a bit in recent years.
>> Now with the NM statement as a platform there’s never been a
>> better time to push to make the IGF a bit more focused, useful,
>> and hopefully able to draw back into discussion more developing 
>> country government participants.  However it will not be easy as 
>> there are well organized forces who’d oppose any changes that
>> make the IGF more than a talk shop, and the chair is, to put it
>> mildly, rather cautious.  Hence the current draft agenda for the
>> MAG meeting relegates intersessional work and improved outcomes
>> to being just one of four topics covered in a three hour session,
>> not a promising start.  I noted that would not be enough time,
>> and received the zen response that we have the time we have (much
>> of which is in fact underprogrammed).  So if CS cares to push for
>> a more focused discussion and an action-oriented IGF, this would 
>> require coordination.
>> 
>> I believe some people will be arriving arriving the previous
>> week, as the CSTD intersessional 
>> http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=610  is 
>> currently scheduled to take up the IG mapping exercise and
>> WSIS+10 issues the afternoon of Thursday 27 November and all day
>> Friday 28th.  Monday 1 Dec is the IGF open consultation, 2-3
>> Tues-Wed is the open MAG meeting.
>> 
>> I’ve created a Doodle poll to see who will be around when and 
>> whether we might get be able to together for some strategizing 
>> regarding these important meetings.
>> 
>> http://doodle.com/g8kg32fxwxcehnab#table
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> PS:  WSIS+10 Mavens might want to check out the new SG report, 
>> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/CSTD_2014_wsis10review_report_en.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>> 
On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi everyone, As a new CS member of the MAG, I hope you will all
>>> be vocal in letting me/us know what positions we should
>>> emphasise for IGF2015, in particular for attending the issues
>>> of highest importance for LAC. I/we count on your input and
>>> expertise. I like Carolina's idea of a hangout or other meeting
>>> to discuss priorities and strategies before the December open
>>> consultations and MAG meeting. Cheers, Ginger
>>> 
>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>>> 
>>> /Application deadline approaching: / Master/PGD in
>>> Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance option 
>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD 
>>> <http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=68a4fc5e88&e=bc0aff4eba>
>>>
>>> 
//<http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>//
>>> 
>>> *//*
>> 
>> *********************************************** William J. Drake 
>> International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation
>> Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair,
>> Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> <http://www.ncuc.org> william.drake at uzh.ch 
>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists), www.williamdrake.org
>> <http://www.williamdrake.org> 
>> ***********************************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To unsubscribe or change
>> your settings, visit: 
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive
> director association for progressive communications po box 29755,
> melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Aida Mahmutović Programmes Manager Internet Rights and Women's
> rights and safety online oneworld-platform for southeast europe
> (owpsee) tel/fax: ++387 (0)33 834 899 twitter: @PrincessaAida
> 
> http://www.oneworldsee.org <http://www.oneworldsee.org/> 
> http://www.oneworldsee.org/civicit http://www.ilab.ba/ 
> http://www.zenskaposla.ba <http://www.zenskaposla.ba/> 
> http://mapirajnasilje.net <http://mapirajnasilje.net/>
> 
> "Internet Rights are Human Rights"
> 
> 
> 

- -- 

- ---------------------------------
Jac sm Kee
Manager, Women's Rights Programme
Association for Progressive Communications
www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUa2Y1AAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmdnwH+gI085EZkBHKI7yR5B7CISxR
C0yOGqJZoONhWYeKS8Az8Ppj3pKbtNPo3qCx0KHCXHDkUqthJXKEq9RZnZVqWtvj
Mks75YLrN0Q25nx9FdI6+GMmUaZpEb0qtgOEWlmIum6zgpUU8USVng7fed6kMtKm
lvPKI8R1XK6p9EPhJcGoMhnBK/wNeERu/Gn/EQ23ptyaVox05EnxFAHXN9EOC0jA
8sOc9szVr1FuEYsxuBHFLU0xZErsIfeQpDLwesnFOv9fq6ibZEYneUBci1180Z++
t3G8qaVBqtkRAW1nrSET9/vrWItI6eUmj1K0jeLePfl24ANjnVBzRkpffcokulE=
=n8sO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Tue Nov 18 11:12:11 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:12:11 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: Whether to participate in
 NETmundial Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CAPcSPKVkm2n87_jHnC67c26==KPbDDtNcQAqUrCvhDBprNZB4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <CAPcSPKVkm2n87_jHnC67c26==KPbDDtNcQAqUrCvhDBprNZB4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2B310EF9-64FA-447E-8E4F-06AB2E53FEF1@theglobaljournal.net>

Dear Baudoin,

Sorry for I was following some sessions at the GIP conference, and unable to get back to you in the meantime.

I have no authority, nor knowledge, over deadline. Are you referring to the ICANN/WEF/CGIbr initiative to nominate CS participants?

So far, Jeremy has not answered to my questions, and it seems like the idea is not to discuss the validity of the initiative but simply say if participants are willing to go along with that initiative and who's going to have the final cut on who from CS is going to be at the table.

I am sure someone at BB will be able to give you all the right info

Best,
JC

Le 18 nov. 2014 à 10:57, Baudouin Schombe a écrit :

> Hello Jean Christophe
> 
> Compared to the questions proposed to BB, what is the deadline? In my case, I have to consult colleagues and collect their opinions.
> 
> 2014-11-18 8:49 GMT+01:00 Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>:
> Jeremy,
> 
> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to, as I see no such thing in the JNC statement - and would feel most uncomfortable would it be so. I would say JNC brings some interesting and documented facts and thoughtful perspective, even though the BestBits is never either quoted or named in this statement. As per your email recommendation having not yet shared my views on this WEF/ICANN/CGIbr topic, here are some thoughts.
> 
> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members:
> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)
> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council"
> - Eileen Donahoe, former US Ambassador at the Human Rights Council, now at HRW: "There is an urgent need for new thinking about distributed, multistakeholder governance"
> - Virgilio Almeida, CGIbr, National Secretary for IT policies, Brazil: "... A platform that is going to be oriented to solve Internet Governance Issues..."
> - Richard Samans, Managing Director, WEF: "Internet Governance issues are at the top in our industry community conversations, and this is no surprise as it has become one of the hottest political issues of our times... well beyond the technical issues our partner, ICANN, has been dealing for many many years."
> - Fadi Chehadé: "For the first time in Sao Paulo, the Internet community agreed on a set of common principles and a roadmap in order to energize our work together, addressing the technical, and more important now, non technical issues".
> 
> So the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative seems to be a place where every one can have his own impression of achieving his own dream. Cool. More seriously, the 750 or so corporations members of the WEF are not jumping in the Sao Paulo legacy for nothing - their membership fees are expensive enough to get a return on investment. It would be naive to think they come to the beauty of discussing trends and fashion in IG conversation. Of course, a few cynics might enjoy playing poker, even though, and I appreciate Lee's questioning on that, there is little doubt that nobody will ever jump out of that elitist club once onboard.
> 
> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy (overlooking the Leman Lake and located in the most wealthy suburbs of Geneva), should for once, Civil Society shows some unity, strength and courage assuming its best bets are ethical values, if not pragmatic democratic values - and in that regard, acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
> 
> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
> - what are the concrete points you do not feel comfortable with regarding the initiative - reference to your own critic and personal deeply conflicted approach of it. It would be fair to remind us on that. 
> - how will the BB list will proceed to come to a conclusion between pro and cons?
> - what is your understanding of what is the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr initiative about to concretely be? A venture to fund specific programs or projects? A coordination office for existing IG related institutions or entities? A driver for what Chehahé sees as a Sao Paulo roadmap? Do you have a link for this roadmap to share with us?
> - which other civil society representatives have endorsed the initiative according to your knowledge apart from CGIbr and HRW? Not sure Afilias and CIRA are to be considered as civil society as they are in the registry business.
> - how can we make a difference between an exaggerated critic and not an exaggerated critic? In other words, how far can we be critical of that initiative? How can one critic of the initiative not be considered as specious, as so far ISOC and JNC have failed in your eyes to express "fair" critics.
> - are you in agreement with the naming of the WEF/ICANN/CIGbr initiative: The NetMundial Initiative, a "continuation of Sao Paulo to implement the roadmap with CGIbr in the leadership position, ICANN being a partner on a lower level, and the WEF a collaborator" according to Wolfgang Keinwächter (ICANN) see email Nov 4 *.
> 
> Answers would certainly be helpful in order to have a fruitful conversation in this thread.
> 
> Thanks 
> JC
> 
> 
> * WK Full quote : "My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). ICANN will continue - on a lower level - to be a partner and the WEF will "collaborate" with the NMI (having its own projects independent from NMI). But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA."
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 04:53, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
> 
>> By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case.  All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently.
>> 
>> Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been expressed pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.
>> 
>> So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet.  Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org.
>> 
>> So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>> 
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> 
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>  
> COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC
> ICANN/AFRALO Member
> ISOC Member
> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
> email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
> skype                 : b.schombe
> blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/0b1fabda/attachment.htm>

From amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se  Tue Nov 18 11:40:02 2014
From: amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se (Amelia Andersdotter)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:40:02 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative -
 RFC
In-Reply-To: <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <546B7662.4050209@piratpartiet.se>

Dear all,

I would like to contribute to the understanding of the IGF, with
particular emphasis on the Dynamic Coalition experiment which was
undertaken by friends at the Council of Europe (Elvana Thaci and Luca
Belli) regarding Net Neutrality.

Whatever the purported legitimacy and stringency, or suitability, of the
process of the NN DC output, it had an impact on policy discussions in
Brussels that there was such a document, which had been elaborated by a
group that had the institutional ties required for a public institution
to "acknowledge" such documents. Unfortunately, this legitimacy was
taken from the CoE, rather than from the IGF (in my understanding of the
Brussels dynamic) but this is only a matter of how to formulate
advancements of such outputs.

It is also indicative of the IGF being a platform which can be developed
further in that direction. With this in mind, I also wish to disclose
that I am suspicious of "forum proliferation". If a particular
determination and decision making at a global has proven ineffective in
one type of global forum, creating a new global forum to which fewer
actors and states have access is unlikely to be successful in a "good
way" (ref. ACTA, plurilateral trade negotiations, et c).

best regards,

Amelia

On 11/18/14 11:31, Ian Peter wrote:
> At this point of time discussions are going on in a number of forums as regards
participation, not just here; and it would be helpful if the debate was
about whether to participate or not, not about who said what when.
>
> As an aid to this, and perhaps to focus discussion a little, here is a
brief summary of some of the arguments for and against that I have seen
advanced. Not a complete list, but perhaps this might help some people
to understand that other people have perspectives that differ from their
own. i would urge people to add their own perspectives to these so that
an informed decision is made.
>
>
>
> FOR INVOLVEMENT
>
> With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF
as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and
again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action
on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar
organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights
issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few.
>
> The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out
in practice, would create a credible and open initiative
>
> There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us
forward on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions
>
> Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society
>
>
>
> AGAINST INVOLVEMENT
>
> The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance
and this could become that
>
> ISOC has withdrawn
>
> Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society
>
> This initiative has a track record of poor communication
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> From: Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:53 PM
> To: Best Bits
> Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
> By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the
Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the
NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false
information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil
Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian
Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should
have made clear, that is *not* the case.  All that has happened is that
the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to
participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept
our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society
representatives independently.
>
> Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about
whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been
expressed pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about
the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and
JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise
the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a
single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an
alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an
exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.
>
> So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we
should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I
remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of
factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the
1% taking over the Internet.  Also note that a few civil society
representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already
and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of
netmundial.org.
>
> So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views,
please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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



From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Tue Nov 18 11:39:22 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:39:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: AW: [governance] Re: FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
 WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
References: <593FEFE2-CBF2-40CB-B932-015E689BE87C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FA94CDD6-ED4A-47A8-B1AE-52091D530294@theglobaljournal.net>

Sorry for cross posting

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : Jean-Christophe Nothias <jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com>
> Date : 18 novembre 2014 17:30:26 HNEC
> À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> Cc : Baudouin Schombe <baudouin.schombe at gmail.com>, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Objet : Rép : AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
> 
> Wolfgang,
> 
> Thanks for sharing your impression of what is to be the ICANN/WEF/CGIbr initiative. It brings even more questions about what is it really that is in the making. Probably because you are working currently at ICANN, that might explain why your insider vision is relatively different from what others are able to tell us. (BY the way, have you had time to think about you being seated at the NMI, but then under which hat: one more seat for ICANN, or one more seat for ICANN?
> 
> We all have in mind the idea that ICANN does not feel fully legitimate to address "INTERNET PUBLIC POLICY" issues, and therefore called for reinforcement of some sort. But could you explain how the WEF and its cohort of corps are even more legitimate to handle these kind of issues? I am wondering also what is the connection between privacy and Human Rights and the WEF, the ICANN and the CGIbr. What's the idea there? Has Pr. Klaus Schwab a new idea for himself to end his lasting career to go into human rights from economy? Tell us about that. The general manager of the WEF tells on the NMI website, that this is all about politics, and money. Somehow what Louis Pouzin said earlier today when mapping the IG.
> 
> Also, if according to your CEO at ICANN, Netmundial has been a moment for the "Internet community"  -not sure what it is exactly - to agree upon a set of common principles, where does the Sao Paulo roadmap (unseen at this stage by many of us) tell us why the WEF is a critical asset to define new internet governance mechanisms, privacy norms and human rights corporate responsibility or process or whatever is on their mind?
> 
> If the WEF wishes to edit a report about new ideas regarding the Internet and its governance, we welcome all contributions, but for what superior reasons do we need to have this new "thing" when the most critical thing Civil Society should preferably care about is how to create a robust and sustainable funding for the IGF. Maybe the WEF and ICANN should provide some financing to IGF, and re-energize it, and call for greater efficiency, transparency and accountability of the IGF. Instead of paying for another business-show.
> 
> I think JNC has given a very clear and strong explanation about why CS should refrain from participating in such platform. As did ISOC. Not exactly small players in IG.
> 
> Thanks
> JC
> 
> 
> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 15:08, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :
> 
>> I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions. Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force. NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges. 
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe
>> Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
>> Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
>> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> My question becomes increasingly growing:
>> 1. What happens to the NetMundial?
>> 2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil?
>> 3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive
>> selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles.
>> I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether
>> we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each
>> country because
>> everything is based on some national issues is our continental location.
>> All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with
>> all its consequences.
>> What we want exactly?
>> With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion;
>> for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again
>> and again discriminatory policies.
>> Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that
>> many plurality of concepts also need?
>> 
>> Baudouin
>> 
>> 
>> 2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:
>> 
>>> Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for
>>>> wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on
>>>> civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the NETmundial
>>>> Initiative.
>>> 
>>> Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me
>>> quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused of
>>> having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon
>>> which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global
>>> governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the support
>>> for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly admit
>>> and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a very
>>> serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when actions
>>> are taken which are in their effect supportive of this "caravan", but
>>> where those who take or explicitly support such action get away with
>>> simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that it didn't
>>> happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for any of the
>>> concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to consequently
>>> change their stance.)
>>> 
>>> Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful
>>> about...
>>> 
>>> The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and
>>> which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads in
>>> full as follows:
>>> 
>>> For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC,
>>> BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination
>>> Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to
>>> organize a selection process for civil society representatives for
>>> NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition
>>> (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it
>>> goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association
>>> for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo
>>> Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial
>>> Stakeholders Group (NCSG).
>>> 
>>> For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that
>>> some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of Internet
>>> ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and other
>>> elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative".
>>> 
>>> I maintain that the concerned letter
>>> 
>>> * is indeed very positive, and that
>>> 
>>> * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society
>>> representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that
>>> 
>>> * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental
>>> concept of NMI and the invitation to participate.
>>> 
>>> This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that
>>> also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding
>>> the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the
>>> letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI
>>> council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva"
>>> 
>>> But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be
>>> given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves
>>> on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in
>>> principle of NMI.
>>> 
>>> After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to
>>> effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that
>>> what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events.
>>> 
>>> JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in the
>>> statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on the
>>> basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding letter is
>>> sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We would
>>> certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated version
>>> of the statement.
>>> 
>>> So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI:
>>> 
>>> """
>>>   Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard,
>>> 
>>>   RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL
>>> 
>>>   I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil
>>>   Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for
>>>   nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial
>>>   Initiative.
>>> 
>>>   I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a
>>>   "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working
>>>   on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a
>>>   co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to
>>>   making civil society appointments to outside bodies.
>>> 
>>>   Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet
>>>   Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications,
>>>   Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non
>>>   Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands
>>>   of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society
>>>   members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial
>>>   initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as
>>>   nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group
>>>   renewal.
>>> 
>>>   A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last
>>>   week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to
>>>   collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the
>>>   internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong
>>>   commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process
>>>   in bringing this into action.
>>> 
>>>   We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for
>>>   nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative
>>>   for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our
>>>   concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes
>>>   be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination
>>>   process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by
>>>   the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the
>>>   São Paulo NETmundial meeting".
>>> 
>>>   We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to
>>>   ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in
>>>   selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and
>>>   effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this
>>>   end in mind.
>>> 
>>>   SUGGESTION ONE
>>> 
>>>   Although we could go through a separate nomination process and
>>>   forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the
>>>   current situation a more workable process would be to encourage
>>>   suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but
>>>   then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our
>>>   recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on
>>>   circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region,
>>>   or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region,
>>>   to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder
>>>   groups.
>>> 
>>>   We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow
>>>   this process, we would need to receive from you full details of
>>>   each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to
>>>   give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date;
>>>   ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving
>>>   such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than
>>>   necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be
>>>   maintained.
>>> 
>>>   SUGGESTION TWO
>>> 
>>>   Additionally, we could have a representative work with you  (the
>>>   transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and
>>>   writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one
>>>   of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to
>>>   complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to
>>>   ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback
>>>   on this additional option as well.
>>> 
>>>   TIME CONSTRAINTS
>>> 
>>>   If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would
>>>   need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this
>>>   manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please
>>>   if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be
>>>   able to respond.
>>> 
>>>   We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful
>>>   collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual
>>>   concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and
>>>   effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and
>>>   look forward to working with you to achieve this.
>>> 
>>>   Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
>>> 
>>>   Sincerely,
>>> 
>>>   Ian Peter
>>>   Independent Chair
>>> """
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*
>> 
>> 
>> *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC*
>> 
>> *ICANN/AFRALO Member*
>> *ISOC Member*
>> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
>> email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
>> skype                 : b.schombe
>> blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/f1662c0d/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Nov  1 11:18:43 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:18:43 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)
In-Reply-To: <DA5BCF87-F566-4BDF-A68B-8E24E5E52CC6@difference.com.au>
References: <DA5BCF87-F566-4BDF-A68B-8E24E5E52CC6@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <20141101161843.084559fb@quill>

(This posting is entirely in my personal capacity; where I write about
JNC as “we”, I am giving my perception, not speaking on behalf of JNC.
Although I'm pretty sure that I could probably back up all those claims
with references to specific published JNC statements, I haven't done
that double-checking.)


On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 18:21:50 +0800
David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> 	So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe
> its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite
> tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on
> practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made
> into a practical transnational organisation).

I personally started the journey which led to my involvement in what
eventually led to the creation of the Just Net Coalition by writing an
Internet-Draft specifically on an idea for practical/operational
multistakeholder consensus processes on matters of public policy 
at the transnational level, while adopting a central design goal that
decision-making must be democratic.

See http://wisdomtaskforce.org/

But how could this or any other proposal be evaluated in the absence of
credible and well-considered principles?

Therefore IMO the Just Net Coalition must necessarily take the route of
seriously working on principles before thereafter, on the basis of that
work, endorsing or not particular solution proposals.

> 	I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden
> participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact,
> a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the
> inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed
> to openness as a principle per se.

That is not quite true.

We are not opposed to the inclusion of commercial operators in the
discourse processes.

We are however opposed to including them in ways which violate the
principles of democracy. For example giving them what is in effect veto
rights violates the principles of democracy.

> negotiation text. Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the
> excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to
> what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some
> members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc. 

Of course transparency is critically important for creating any
democratic model of Internet governance, and hence for one of our core
objectives.

That however does not justify witch-hunts against the ITU or against
any other organization.

> 	And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to
> consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to
> me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage
> broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms.
> Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but
> *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process,
> which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most
> policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures. It is
> also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact
> definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its
> processes, and there are several more  being used in the IG space),
> and some may be more practical or desirable than others. 

For a position on a process and definition of consensus which Richard
Hill and I recommend for use in the context of public policy related
multistakeholder discourse, see the final section of the paper “Thoughts
on Best Practices for Multistakeholder Participation Mechanisms” at
http://www.apig.ch/best_practices.pdf

> 	And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting
> that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy
> that they dislike, etc.

In my view, we are not at all hostile to consensus in JNC. In fact our
internal decision processes have so far all been consensus process
based.

Also in my view, in public discourses on public policy matters a serious
attempt at reaching consensus should always be made.

We however strongly oppose elevating consensus decision making to the
status of a principle that would be more fundamental than the principle
that public policy decision-making must be democratic.

Such an over-emphasis on consensus implies that powerful companies can
prevent consensus and then they're free to do whatever they want. Such
a situation is not democratic.

> and advocating strongly for majority voting
> mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism
> over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of
> minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to
> prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are
> unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable.

That depends.

We are in favor of mechanism which promote fair and competitive
markets. Such mechanisms tend to attract the support of a majority
vote, while they are unfavorable to the bosses and major shareholders of
monopolistic companies (a minority of voters).

On the other hand, there are populist policies which in fact violate
the human rights of a minority. Of course no kinds of human rights
violations are acceptable in any context of democratic governance. In
a democratic system of governance, any law or other kind of kind of
governmental action which violates human rights can be ended by a
national constitutional court or transnational human rights law. This
limits the power of a majority to decide policies unfavorable to
minorities, especially in view of the fact that significant principles
of social and economic justice are included among the internationally
recognized human rights. 

> It is
> also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying
> who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a
> non-trivial problem

Yes, absolutely. Which is why in my “Wisdom Task Force” proposal, I
propose to use the already existing national mechanisms.

It is true that in many countries these are not really democratic
enough. Those issues need to be corrected anyway independently of
whatever should be done specifically in regard to Internet governance.  

> The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a
> principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the
> considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt
> with.

I've given my view above. We don't have a consolidated JNC position or
set of views on this yet, but we're working on that.

> I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1
> vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely
> varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not
> really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy.
> It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether
> they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies
> their commitment to democracy as a principle or not.

It's certainly less undemocratic than decision-making models which in
effect ignore the perspectives and needs of entire countries completely.

However it is certainly not a fully democratic system.

JNC is committed to striving for something better, more democratic and
more participative. See point 18 of the Delhi Declaration
http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration .

> The TL:DR summary - 
> Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without
> gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. Transparency.
> Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to
> all who wish to participate by default. And Commitment to consensus.
> Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may
> be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus
> processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred
> to majority voting procedures.

I agree with all of those three points.

I however insist that they must not be elevated above the principle of
democratic decision making. These three principles must be implemented
in a democratic framework.

> I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here

I believe you; your posting does not read like an intentional attempt
in that direction.

Nevertheless, your misunderstandings of the JNC positions do add up to
your portrayal of JNC's positions being a near-total strawman which has
little or nothing at all to do with my views at least.

> - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members
> who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are
> now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU
> transparency,

You must have overlooked JNC's signature and endorsement of the Oct 8
civil society letter on ITU transparency and openness
http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/Letter_to_ITU_-_Busan_Transparency.pdf

Like all other JNC statements and endorsements, this was decided by
means of consensus in JNC. 

> or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus
> decision making has clearly failed, etc.

My view is that there should always be at least a serious attempt at
having an open and participative consensus process. If urgency of a
decision prevents having a full consensus process before the decision
is needed, a preliminary decision should be taken by other means and
the opportunity for the consensus oriented discourse should be created
thereafter, without undue time pressure.

Voting should be done only in the context of a democratic or
multilateral framework.

However, if a democratic or multilateral framework is available in which
voting can reasonably take place, and if there has been a successful
open and participative consensus process, then there should be no harm
in having a vote. The result of such a vote should be unanimous or
near-unanimous.

> But I think
> it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour
> MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to
> paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles
> that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with
> multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based
> on a commitment to those broader principles.

I would classify anyone as being relatively hostile to democracy who
elevates those three principles so highly that it isn't seen as a
serious problem anymore if a process (with public policy relevance) is
not democratic but it only (approximately or fully) conforms to those
three principles.

Greetings,
Norbert
(co-convenor and co-founder of JNC, but writing in personal capacity.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/ea91490a/attachment.sig>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue Nov 18 11:55:01 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:55:01 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>

On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 
> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,

Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org/>, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list.

> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members:
> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)

Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.

> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council”

A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?

> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ...

None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”.

> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants.

I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.

> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.

Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).  What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative.

Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against).

> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):

I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/3195175c/attachment.htm>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Tue Nov 18 12:11:19 2014
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:11:19 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Second African School on IG
In-Reply-To: <546B5530.4060405@apc.org>
References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> <5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au> <546B5530.4060405@apc.org>
Message-ID: <546B7DB7.2090103@softwarefreedom.org>

Anriette,

Good luck! Real action where its required and not just talk. I wish this
was replicated in other places .

On 11/18/2014 09:18 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> Thanks David.. and you will be missed. It was good to have so many
> people from NCUC there last year. I will also really miss having
> Carlos Afonso.. the participants really enjoyed learning from the
> Brazilian experience.
>
> On the other hand I am really pleased that we have such a strong
> contingent of African faculty and resource people joining us this year.
>
> We often talk about building capacity in IG, and I generally get
> irritated when it is used in ways that I find politically patronising
> (when used as a way of dealing with developing country gripes).
>
> We don't spend nearly enough time, either as civil society, or as
> Africans - in this instance - acknowledging how much capacity we
> already have.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 18/11/2014 16:02, David Cake wrote:
> > I hope it goes well, I very much enjoyed being a very small part of
> it in 2013.
>
> > David
>
> > On 18 Nov 2014, at 4:15 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not
> be there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG
> which will start in Mauritius later this week.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >> http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/
> >>
> >> --
> >> `````````````````````````````````
> >> anriette esterhuysen
> >> executive director
> >> association for progressive communications
> >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
> >> anriette at apc.org
> >> www.apc.org
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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

-- 
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/20141118/e00989cd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/e00989cd/attachment.sig>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Tue Nov 18 12:15:35 2014
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:15:35 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Second African School on IG
In-Reply-To: <546B7DB7.2090103@softwarefreedom.org>
References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org> <5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au> <546B5530.4060405@apc.org> <546B7DB7.2090103@softwarefreedom.org>
Message-ID: <546B7EB7.3010906@softwarefreedom.org>

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant the capacity building exercise like the
African School on IG is replicated in other regions.


On 11/18/2014 12:11 PM, Mishi Choudhary wrote:
> Anriette,
>
> Good luck! Real action where its required and not just talk. I wish
> this was replicated in other places .
>
> On 11/18/2014 09:18 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >
>> Thanks David.. and you will be missed. It was good to have so many
>> people from NCUC there last year. I will also really miss having
>> Carlos Afonso.. the participants really enjoyed learning from the
>> Brazilian experience.
>>
>> On the other hand I am really pleased that we have such a strong
>> contingent of African faculty and resource people joining us this year.
>>
>> We often talk about building capacity in IG, and I generally get
>> irritated when it is used in ways that I find politically patronising
>> (when used as a way of dealing with developing country gripes).
>>
>> We don't spend nearly enough time, either as civil society, or as
>> Africans - in this instance - acknowledging how much capacity we
>> already have.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18/11/2014 16:02, David Cake wrote:
>> > I hope it goes well, I very much enjoyed being a very small part of
>> it in 2013.
>>
>> > David
>>
>> > On 18 Nov 2014, at 4:15 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
>> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Dear all
>> >>
>> >> Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not
>> be there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG
>> which will start in Mauritius later this week.
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >>
>> >> Anriette
>> >>
>> >> http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> `````````````````````````````````
>> >> anriette esterhuysen
>> >> executive director
>> >> association for progressive communications
>> >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>> >> anriette at apc.org
>> >> www.apc.org
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


-- 
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/20141118/6f40ec40/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/6f40ec40/attachment.sig>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Tue Nov 18 12:20:14 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:20:14 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Second African School on IG
In-Reply-To: <546B7EB7.3010906@softwarefreedom.org>
References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org>
	<5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au>
	<546B5530.4060405@apc.org>
	<546B7DB7.2090103@softwarefreedom.org>
	<546B7EB7.3010906@softwarefreedom.org>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6iaVjbLk1xAk+CJRQ76UUH4A1QS1VM7+-YJTiBZj8yF+w@mail.gmail.com>

I think it's happening in other regions. I do know of the European version
for instance.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 18 Nov 2014 18:15, "Mishi Choudhary" <mishi at softwarefreedom.org> wrote:

>  Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant the capacity building exercise like the
> African School on IG is replicated in other regions.
>
>
> On 11/18/2014 12:11 PM, Mishi Choudhary wrote:
>
> Anriette,
>
> Good luck! Real action where its required and not just talk. I wish this
> was replicated in other places .
>
> On 11/18/2014 09:18 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >
>
> Thanks David.. and you will be missed. It was good to have so many people
> from NCUC there last year. I will also really miss having Carlos Afonso..
> the participants really enjoyed learning from the Brazilian experience.
>
> On the other hand I am really pleased that we have such a strong
> contingent of African faculty and resource people joining us this year.
>
> We often talk about building capacity in IG, and I generally get irritated
> when it is used in ways that I find politically patronising (when used as a
> way of dealing with developing country gripes).
>
> We don't spend nearly enough time, either as civil society, or as Africans
> - in this instance - acknowledging how much capacity we already have.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 18/11/2014 16:02, David Cake wrote:
> > I hope it goes well, I very much enjoyed being a very small part of it
> in 2013.
>
> > David
>
> > On 18 Nov 2014, at 4:15 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org> <anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you will not be
> there, you can find out more about the Second African School on IG which
> will start in Mauritius later this week.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >> http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/
> >>
> >> --
> >> `````````````````````````````````
> >> anriette esterhuysen
> >> executive director
> >> association for progressive communications
> >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
> >> anriette at apc.org
> >> www.apc.org
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <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
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards
> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
> Legal Director
> Software Freedom Law Center
> 1995 Broadway Floor 17
> New York, NY-10023
> (tel) 212-461-1912
> (fax) 212-580-0898www.softwarefreedom.org
>
>
> Executive Director SFLC.IN
> K-9, Second Floor
> Jangpura Extn.
> New Delhi-110014
> (tel) +91-11-43587126
> (fax) +91-11-24323530www.sflc.in
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/ed36a5d2/attachment.htm>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Tue Nov 18 12:22:24 2014
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:22:24 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Second African School on IG
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6iaVjbLk1xAk+CJRQ76UUH4A1QS1VM7+-YJTiBZj8yF+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <546B002A.7050209@apc.org>	<5A88E61B-D26C-4AEC-AE9F-4B990626C747@difference.com.au>	<546B5530.4060405@apc.org>	<546B7DB7.2090103@softwarefreedom.org>	<546B7EB7.3010906@softwarefreedom.org> <CAD_dc6iaVjbLk1xAk+CJRQ76UUH4A1QS1VM7+-YJTiBZj8yF+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546B8050.20409@softwarefreedom.org>

Great if it is! Are you aware of anything in Asia?

On 11/18/2014 12:20 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> I think it's happening in other regions. I do know of the European
> version for instance.
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 18 Nov 2014 18:15, "Mishi Choudhary" <mishi at softwarefreedom.org
> <mailto:mishi at softwarefreedom.org>> wrote:
>
>     Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant the capacity building exercise
>     like the African School on IG is replicated in other regions.
>
>
>     On 11/18/2014 12:11 PM, Mishi Choudhary wrote:
>>     Anriette,
>>
>>     Good luck! Real action where its required and not just talk. I
>>     wish this was replicated in other places .
>>
>>     On 11/18/2014 09:18 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>     >
>>>     Thanks David.. and you will be missed. It was good to have so
>>>     many people from NCUC there last year. I will also really miss
>>>     having Carlos Afonso.. the participants really enjoyed learning
>>>     from the Brazilian experience.
>>>
>>>     On the other hand I am really pleased that we have such a strong
>>>     contingent of African faculty and resource people joining us
>>>     this year.
>>>
>>>     We often talk about building capacity in IG, and I generally get
>>>     irritated when it is used in ways that I find politically
>>>     patronising (when used as a way of dealing with developing
>>>     country gripes).
>>>
>>>     We don't spend nearly enough time, either as civil society, or
>>>     as Africans - in this instance - acknowledging how much capacity
>>>     we already have.
>>>
>>>     Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 18/11/2014 16:02, David Cake wrote:
>>>     > I hope it goes well, I very much enjoyed being a very small
>>>     part of it in 2013.
>>>
>>>     > David
>>>
>>>     > On 18 Nov 2014, at 4:15 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen
>>>     <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>>>     <mailto:anriette at apc.org> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     >> Dear all
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Some of you will be there in person, but for those of you
>>>     will not be there, you can find out more about the Second
>>>     African School on IG which will start in Mauritius later this week.
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Best
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Anriette
>>>     >>
>>>     >> http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/
>>>     >>
>>>     >> --
>>>     >> `````````````````````````````````
>>>     >> anriette esterhuysen
>>>     >> executive director
>>>     >> association for progressive communications
>>>     >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>>>     >> anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>>>     >> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
>>>     >> ____________________________________________________________
>>>     >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     >>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>     <mailto: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
>>>     <mailto: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
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>     -- 
>>     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 <http://www.softwarefreedom.org>
>>
>>
>>     Executive Director
>>     SFLC.IN <http://SFLC.IN>
>>     K-9, Second Floor
>>     Jangpura Extn.
>>     New Delhi-110014
>>     (tel) +91-11-43587126 <tel:%2B91-11-43587126>
>>     (fax) +91-11-24323530 <tel:%2B91-11-24323530>
>>     www.sflc.in <http://www.sflc.in>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>     -- 
>     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 <http://www.softwarefreedom.org>
>
>
>     Executive Director 
>     SFLC.IN <http://SFLC.IN>
>     K-9, Second Floor
>     Jangpura Extn.
>     New Delhi-110014
>     (tel) +91-11-43587126 <tel:%2B91-11-43587126> 
>     (fax) +91-11-24323530 <tel:%2B91-11-24323530>
>     www.sflc.in <http://www.sflc.in>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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


-- 
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/20141118/d66b3215/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Nov 18 13:01:56 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:56 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
 WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <CAPcSPKXqRcdXKk3oKX521iy4ca3xKR7AA+Vruj0BD7EL90Yotw@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <179f01d00343$d7a21440$86e63cc0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <192101d00359$be75d3b0$3b617b10$@gmail.com>

Wolfgang

We must be talking about different networks.  The NMI as I understand it has
ultimate centralized decision making (ie: the final say on appointments to
the Steering Committee) and centralized control through the Steering
Committee over financing/funding. 

In the NMI the intelligence may (or may not) be at the edges, but the power
seems to be firmly entrenched at the centre.

M  

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:49 AM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe;
Norbert Bollow
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
WEF's Net Mundial Initiative

Hi Michael

in a decentralized network, the intelligence (and the power) is at the
edges, not in the centre. A root server has no real power. It takes a query
and sends it to the next server towards the final destination to enable
communication between a sender and a receiver. Sender and receiver remain
independent, but they benefit from their communication. To  enable
communication among independent national multistakeholder platforms would be
produce benefit for both sides without creating a "power centre" in the
middle of a network. Thatswhy the principle of network neutrality is so
important. Take a ccTLD registry. The make their own Independent policy,b
but they benefit from "best practices" via the CNSO.

Wolfgang


 ergive (independent)  


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 16:25
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Baudouin
Schombe'; 'Norbert Bollow'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Betreff: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
 
All presumably under the gentlest but strongest and tightest control from
the master spiders sitting at the centre of the web in Washington and
Geneva.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 6:09 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin Schombe;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
WEF's Net Mundial Initiative

I see NMI as an initiative which moves forward with innovative policy ideas
into still unknown territory. One recommendation of NetMundial in Sau Paulo
was to encourage the formation of national multistakeholder Internet
Governance platforms which will help to deals with the local Internet
Governance issues, taking into account the global and regional discussions.
Zhis wold be a concret step where CS can ans has to become a driving force.
NMI is a good opportunity a. to help the launch of such national platforms
and b. to link them together in a decentralized and diversified "Internet
Governance Web" which is based on the local realities, needs and challenges.


Wolfgang

    


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Baudouin Schombe
Gesendet: Di 18.11.2014 14:51
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: [discuss] JNC statement on
WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
 
Hello all,

My question becomes increasingly growing:
1. What happens to the NetMundial?
2. NetMundial initiative is different from NetMundial launched in Brazil?
3. All these groupings of civil society are more partisan and exclusive
selections. It looks like copineries and friendships circles.
I think we should take into account national and regional realities. Whether
we talk about IGF or NetMundial we need from considerations of each country
because everything is based on some national issues is our continental
location.
All these debates within civil society suggests a crisis of leadership with
all its consequences.
What we want exactly?
With representation from civil society in UNCTAD, there has been exclusion;
for MAG, so many asctuces and in the current situation for NetMundial again
and again discriminatory policies.
Ultimately, whatever the plurality of civil society, should understand that
many plurality of concepts also need?

Baudouin


2014-11-18 14:04 GMT+01:00 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:

> Jeremy Malcolm (the representative of Best Bits in CSCG) wrote:
>
> > Via Norbert I have requested that JNC issue a public apology for 
> > wrongly stating in this article, along with much other dumping on 
> > civil society colleagues, that Best Bits is supporting the 
> > NETmundial Initiative.
>
> Before I reply to the substance of this accusation of lying, let me 
> quickly comment on why these facts (about which JNC is being accused 
> of having told a lie) have some importance: In view of the phenomenon 
> which were calling "the caravan for a neo-liberal capture of global 
> governance", it would in our view be a huge step forward if the 
> support for that could be reduced to those who are willing to publicly 
> admit and defend their support for it. From this perspective, it is a 
> very serious and significant systemic problem in civil society when 
> actions are taken which are in their effect supportive of this 
> "caravan", but where those who take or explicitly support such action 
> get away with simply disclaiming responsibility, or even claiming that 
> it didn't happen. (By contrast it is a legitimate course of action for 
> any of the concerned parties to admit to having made a mistake, and to 
> consequently change their stance.)
>
> Now to the substance of what we're accused of having been untruthful 
> about...
>
> The footnote which is referenced in this demand for an apology (and 
> which is the only place where any mention of Best Bits is made) reads 
> in full as follows:
>
>   For example, on the basis of positive views expressed by APC,
>   BestBits, Diplo and NCSG, the chair of the Civil Society Coordination
>   Group (CSCG) has sent a very positive letter to NMI offering to
>   organize a selection process for civil society representatives for
>   NMI's coordination committee. Until now, only the Just Net Coalition
>   (JNC) has opposed this plan, and JNC will refuse to participate if it
>   goes forward. The other member organizations of CSCG are: Association
>   for Progressive Communications (APC), Best Bits, Civicus, Diplo
>   Foundation, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), Non-Commercial
>   Stakeholders Group (NCSG).
>
> For context, this footnote is given in support of the assertion that 
> some "sections of civil society currently active in the area of 
> Internet ... have accepted the invitation from global corporate and 
> other elites to participate in the NetMundial Initiative".
>
> I maintain that the concerned letter
>
> * is indeed very positive, and that
>
> * it offers to organize a selection process for civil society
>   representatives for NMI's coordination committee, and that
>
> * it in fact represents acceptance in principle of the fundamental
>   concept of NMI and the invitation to participate.
>
> This is certainly how we in JNC read the letter, and it appears that 
> also ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé (one of the recipients) is understanding 
> the letter similarly, as Avri tweeted yesterday: "Fadi, praised the 
> letter from civil society asking to select is own members of the #NMI 
> council and legitimizing the initiative. #igeneva"
>
> But it is probably necessary at this point for everyone here to be 
> given the opportunity to be able to make up their minds for themselves 
> on whether, as JNC claims, this letter expresses acceptance in 
> principle of NMI.
>
> After all, JNC has in effect been accused of lying. The only way to 
> effectively counteract such an accusation is to present evidence that 
> what we're saying is in fact the truth about these events.
>
> JNC will of course be very happy if (as we're in fact suggesting in 
> the
> statement) now enough CSCG members change their position so that on 
> the basis of that the CSCG position changes, and a corresponding 
> letter is sent which contradicts the initial quite positive stance. We 
> would certainly acknowledge such a welcome development in an updated 
> version of the statement.
>
> So here is the text of the concerned letter from CSCG's chair to NMI:
>
> """
>     Dear Virgilio, Fadi and Richard,
>
>     RE: NETMUNDIAL INITIATIVE COORDINATION COUNCIL
>
>     I am writing to you on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil
>     Society Coordination Group (CSCG), in response to your call for
>     nominations for a Coordination Council for the new NetMundial
>     Initiative.
>
>     I think you all know something of our organisation. We are a
>     "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups working
>     on internet governance issues, formed specifically to ensure a
>     co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to
>     making civil society appointments to outside bodies.
>
>     Our reach through the represented member coalitions (Internet
>     Governance Caucus, Association for Progressive Communications,
>     Diplo Foundation, Just Net Coalition, Best Bits, Civicus, and Non
>     Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN) extends to some thousands
>     of organisations. We provided the nominations for civil society
>     members appointed to various committees for the original NetMundial
>     initiative in Brazil and the 1net initiative, as well as
>     nominations for the recent IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group
>     renewal.
>
>     A number of us listened in and participated on your webinar last
>     week. We are very pleased to see an effort underway to
>     collaboratively deal with some of the evolving issues in the
>     internet governance arena; and also pleased to see your strong
>     commitment to the NetMundial principles, and to a bottom up process
>     in bringing this into action.
>
>     We have noted carefully the procedures outlined on your website for
>     nominations, and the commitment to one civil society representative
>     for each of the five regions outlined. You are aware of our
>     concerns, which I am sure you share, that the selection processes
>     be credible, involve stakeholder groups, and, as your nomination
>     process states, "formed through a bottom-up process, inspired by
>     the open and transparent approach employed by the organizers of the
>     São Paulo NETmundial meeting".
>
>     We believe this can best be achieved if we work closely with you to
>     ensure that the civil society representation, and involvement in
>     selection of its representatives, is as strong, credible and
>     effective as possible, and make the following suggestions with this
>     end in mind.
>
>     SUGGESTION ONE
>
>     Although we could go through a separate nomination process and
>     forward a number of names to you, it seems to us that in the
>     current situation a more workable process would be to encourage
>     suitable civil society people to nominate as per your process, but
>     then work with you at the close of nominations to provide our
>     recommendations on the most suitable candidates. Depending on
>     circumstances, we could give you one recommended name per region,
>     or we could give a maximum of say three suitable names per region,
>     to enable you to consider intra-regional balance across stakeholder
>     groups.
>
>     We would like your feedback on this option. If we were to follow
>     this process, we would need to receive from you full details of
>     each nomination received for civil society. We could undertake to
>     give completed recommendations within a week of the closing date;
>     ie by December 13. We employ well developed processes for achieving
>     such an outcome in a credible manner and can assure you than
>     necessary confidentiality in dealing with these documents would be
>     maintained.
>
>     SUGGESTION TWO
>
>     Additionally, we could have a representative work with you  (the
>     transitional committee members) on finalising selections, and
>     writing up the rationale for decisions. We appreciate that if one
>     of us takes up such a role, the deliberations would be subject to
>     complete confidentiality, and this would be a facilitating role to
>     ensure the best possible selections. We would welcome your feedback
>     on this additional option as well.
>
>     TIME CONSTRAINTS
>
>     If we are to proceed with one or both of these options, we would
>     need to have your confirmation as to our participation in this
>     manner fairly quickly, so that we can inform our colleagues. Please
>     if possible get back to us this week, or advise when you will be
>     able to respond.
>
>     We look forward to working with you and to a highly successful
>     collaborative initiative to address some important issues of mutual
>     concern. We would like to see a strong, widely endorsed, and
>     effective civil society presence in developing this initiative, and
>     look forward to working with you to achieve this.
>
>     Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
>
>     Sincerely,
>
>     Ian Peter
>     Independent Chair
> """
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


--
*SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*


*COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC*

*ICANN/AFRALO Member*
*ISOC Member*
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr





From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Tue Nov 18 13:06:38 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:06:38 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>

Jeremy,

Thanks for your email.

Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.

Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact. 

What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
- why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance?
- why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing?
- why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
- why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.
- why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example? 
- why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values".

I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.

Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.

So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.

Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.

JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.

There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair.

JC

 

Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :

> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
> 
> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list.
> 
>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members:
>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)
> 
> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
> 
>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
> 
> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
> 
>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ...
> 
> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”.
> 
>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants.
> 
> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.
> 
>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
> 
> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).  What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative.
> 
> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
> 
>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
> 
> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation.
> 
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/f9cbb638/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Tue Nov 18 14:42:02 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:42:02 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
 <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society
members here.

My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table
our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ
is not met.

I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont
think we should miss out.

NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.  From
the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested
in the NMI.

I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
participate but we cannot ask others not to.

Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the
same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.

All for now

Nnenna

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.
>
> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and
> impact.
>
> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with
> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind
> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my
> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that
> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie"
> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple
> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused
> to discuss mass surveillance?
> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and
> growing?
> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo,
> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has
> nothing to do with IG they told us.
> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they
> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.
> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than
> IANA for example?
> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes
> to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the
> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to
> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are
> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative
> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more
> "values".
>
> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS
> should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness
> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone
> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>
> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their
> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that
> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after
> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest,
> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their
> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please
> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>
> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and
> launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations
> to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the
> mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are
> failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You
> only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away
> our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time
> and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>
> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC
> is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more
> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a
> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current
> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes
> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often
> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When
> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply
> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they
> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other
> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work,
> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would
> unleash violence.
>
> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is
> somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons.
> We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid
> another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as
> we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>
> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society
> participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should
> pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda,
> and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be
> fair.
>
> JC
>
>
>
> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <
> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
>
> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on
> civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>
>
> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about
> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this
> list.
>
> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to
> non JNC members:
> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet
> Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald
> about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)
>
>
> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>
> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters
> to create a "UN Security Council”
>
>
> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>
> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
> Chehadé: ...
>
>
> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as
> in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”.
>
> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of
> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what
> was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different
> participants.
>
>
> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
> meeting. On this much we agree.
>
> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should
> for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the
> making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and
> CGIbr.
>
>
> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
> certainly have (
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other
> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of
> the Initiative.
>
> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list,
> two emails in support, as well as one against).
>
> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>
>
> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I
> am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours
> later.  But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most
> recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond
> to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the
> conversation.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/cf64a064/attachment.htm>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Tue Nov 18 15:17:09 2014
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:17:09 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative -
 RFC
In-Reply-To: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6hsm6cFv-d6K+SgJbXXEaq4jK+Bio4uZWDYdmDPzFbORg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

The way i have come to understand NMI (based on my discussion with Fadi
@GIC) is that its not going to be the usual meeting avenues and it will
infact not hold physical meetings (the NETMundial meeting the held in
Brazil will be its first and last physical meeting) but will have all its
meeting online with everyone participating remotely. So it seem there will
be room for participation, unless BB/other civil society are thinking of
participating at the NMI council level which is also important.

However, my concern in all these is how to ensure connection all these
different fora Silos in other to have some track-able outcomes. I am also
wondering how the developing nations will be able to fully participate in
all these.

Cheers!

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the
> Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the
> NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false
> information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil
> Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian
> Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have
> made clear, that is *not* the case.  All that has happened is that the we
> have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to
> participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our
> self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives
> independently.
>
> Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about
> whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been expressed
> pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the
> NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC
> give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the
> initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single
> central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist
> critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style
> bogeyman.
>
> So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should
> bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply
> conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con
> arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the
> Internet.  Also note that a few civil society representatives, including
> Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the
> carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org.
>
> So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, please
> do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20141118/f06a6647/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Nov 18 16:14:07 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:14:07 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative -
 RFC
In-Reply-To: <0776B4E0-B97C-44EC-B550-DAC31369AA71@difference.com.au>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba> <0776B4E0-B97C-44EC-B550-DAC31369AA71@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <B7FA22B691864856AE647D30FD619DAF@Toshiba>

David, just to add some additional information here as regards

>I would add to your list of reasons against that the selection process for representatives currently seems unclear and still problematic, as NMI are, as I understand it, still reserving to themselves the > ability to appoint some representatives against CSCG recommendations. 

As a result of further discussions over the last 24 hours the situation if we participate could be

CSCG Nomcom receives all nominations for civil society participation for evaluation.

CSCG Nomcom recommends one candidate per geographic region and submits with reasons.

NMI convenes a (virtual) meeting with nominated CSCG representatives and their transitional council to discuss any issues arising, with a view to reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of civil society they may also be invited to participate – after discussion with us. Their suggestion is for any such discussion to be livestreamed.

This is all new and currently being discussed within CSCG, but it represents a stronger commitment to CS choosing its own representatives.

Ian Peter




From: David Cake 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:59 AM
To: Ian Peter 
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm ; Best Bits 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

I think Ian's summary is a good one.  

I think there are good reasons to consider a fora that tries to achieve some of the goals that NMI is directed at - we need ways to tackle fora outside the technical remit of most of the I* orgs, and transforming the IGF into that fora seems unlikely. 

I would add to your list of reasons against that the selection process for representatives currently seems unclear and still problematic, as NMI are, as I understand it, still reserving to themselves the ability to appoint some representatives against CSCG recommendations. 

David

On 18 Nov 2014, at 6:31 pm, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:


  At this point of time discussions are going on in a number of forums as regards participation, not just here; and it would be helpful if the debate was about whether to participate or not, not about who said what when. 

  As an aid to this, and perhaps to focus discussion a little, here is a brief summary of some of the arguments for and against that I have seen advanced. Not a complete list, but perhaps this might help some people to understand that other people have perspectives that differ from their own. i would urge people to add their own perspectives to these so that an informed decision is made.



  FOR INVOLVEMENT

  With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few.

  The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out in practice, would create a credible and open initiative 

  There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us forward on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions

  Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society


   
  AGAINST INVOLVEMENT

  The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance and this could become that

  ISOC has withdrawn 

  Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society

  This initiative has a track record of poor communication


   
  Ian Peter


  From: Jeremy Malcolm 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:53 PM
  To: Best Bits 
  Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

  By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the case.  All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process rather than choosing civil society representatives independently.

  Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been expressed pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.

  So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the Internet.  Also note that a few civil society representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of netmundial.org.

  So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.

  -- 
  Jeremy Malcolm
  Senior Global Policy Analyst
  Electronic Frontier Foundation
  https://eff.org
  jmalcolm at eff.org 

  Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

  :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ____________________________________________________________
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141119/00ad6539/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Nov  1 12:52:33 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 09:52:33 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU
 Plenipot joint recommendations
In-Reply-To: <54547CAB.80201@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFwCmbGye0uz86edkpTzCw_dFm3FbcovCnv4QTj6JzgV0T1XzA@mail.gmail.com>	<20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill>	<CAFwCmbHTXov4uhdjji0d56O3VM8V+tjWiKL2yDv2oM_em8k0Vg@mail.gmail.com>	<005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com>	<CACAaNxiJighdPkhHs16Re+Tfw=7h=_DxKarrBm3u9S25ZfmMZA@mail.gmail.com>	<012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com>	<5449583C.7050500@acm.org>	<038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com>	<BDE0EAEF13F3C64B8514446A0D9E29A250CDCD92@A19MAIL.aricle19.org>	<5452F54F.7030506@apc.org>	<54533D1F.9040106@apc.org>	<CAK-FJAfy_uigF2p5NfNT1rVsiypcRup1+7X0BXLfZmA_KgM4Jg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdeC5aNSxpSLKGWku1yPNePrm61qpX+VN_S3Xe3ChRBww@mail.gmail.com> <54547CAB.80201@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <294e01cff5f4$3c311a30$b4934e90$@gmail.com>

Perhaps Carolina could point us to some publications on the ‘Law on "social participation in decision making"’, in Portuguese if nothing in English is available.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 11:25 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

 

 

On Friday 31 October 2014 01:13 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:

and btw, I am pretty sure I mentioned that before, but a couple of months ago Brazil passed a Law on "social participation in decision making" :-)


 I was inclined to participate in this debate at many points, and this is an interesting one to use as my point of departure, or entry...

Carolina, I have obviously not read the mentioned law, but still I am ready to give a blank cheque in its support. I am ready to see it applied to the area of global Internet governance. Do you and others supporting this peculiar version of multistakeholderism (MS) that is prevalent in the global IG space agree to my proposal, which as you can see is a 'blind move' so much trust I have in Brazil's conceptions of what is democracy and what is participatory democracy. 

If you and others whom I give this friendly challenge come back with a positive response, we can begin talking at an empirical level, rather than chasing that rather slippery and amoebic figure of MSism.

Meanwhile, I can also add that India has laws about social accountability , called social audits, and of 'village assemblies' as the final authority holder for local government powers. All very interesting laws, and these kinds are what we should be taking our cues from.

parminder




 

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

+ 1 on "By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international internet-related governance."

 

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

Dear all

I am only reading this now.

It is excellent.. thanks so much for posting Gabrielle.

This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :)

Civil society activists in the internet space so much opportunity for productive debate and development of positions because of the polarisation between pro-multistakeholder and pro-multilateral factions when it is clear that current approaches in the multilateral system are failing civil society and failing to support any meaningful reform. 

Quoting Maina: "I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over."

By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international internet-related governance.

Anriette 





On 31/10/2014 04:34, joy wrote:

Hi Gabrielle - I meant to say, thanks for sharing this - it's a compelling report and useful for our work.
Kind regards

Joy 

On 25/10/2014 12:27 a.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote:

Hi all,
 
I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
 
I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/
 
Best,
 
Gabrielle
 
 
Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.”
 
The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people.
 
A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/07/protests-banned-during-bali-democracy-forum.html> <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/07/protests-banned-during-bali-democracy-forum.html>. Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum <http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/indonesia/71307-activists-reject-bali-democracy-forum> <http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/indonesia/71307-activists-reject-bali-democracy-forum> a “ceremonial event”.
 
It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states.
 
On October 28, I will present a report <http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurreports/report-multilaterals/> <http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurreports/report-multilaterals/> to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input.
 
To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy.
 
I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over.
 
As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say.
 
First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception <http://ewebapps.worldbank.org/apps/ip/Pages/Home.aspx> <http://ewebapps.worldbank.org/apps/ip/Pages/Home.aspx>). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement.
 
Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily.
 
The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network <http://idsn.org/news-resources/idsn-news/read/article/idsns-fight-for-un-consultative-status-a-case-of-reprisal-against-a-human-rights-ngo/128/> <http://idsn.org/news-resources/idsn-news/read/article/idsns-fight-for-un-consultative-status-a-case-of-reprisal-against-a-human-rights-ngo/128/>, has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India.
 
Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli <http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurpressnews/cao-shunli/> <http://freeassembly.net/rapporteurpressnews/cao-shunli/>, a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care.
 
Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved.
 
Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened.
 
There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies <http://www.olympic.org/documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf> <http://www.olympic.org/documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf> at their events altogether.
 
No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf.
 
It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either.
 
The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings.
 
When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states.
 
Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses.
 
Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly <http://freeassembly.net/> <http://freeassembly.net/> website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR <https://twitter.com/MainaKiai_UNSR> <https://twitter.com/MainaKiai_UNSR> on Twitter.
 
 
 
________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57
To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
 
You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia
 
 
Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29> of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy> (Greek demos <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos> and kratos <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%82>) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participator
 y. …
Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities.
It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”.
But maybe I’m missing something.
M
 
 
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
 
 
On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote:
 
 If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance.
 
 
I haven't read your blog.  But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme.  I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy.
 
I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition.  So the frames of reference are really quite different.
 
avri





____________________________________________________________
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
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org


____________________________________________________________
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





 

-- 

-- 

Carolina Rossini 

Vice President, International Policy

Public Knowledge

http://www.publicknowledge.org/

+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

 





 

-- 

-- 

Carolina Rossini 

Vice President, International Policy

Public Knowledge

http://www.publicknowledge.org/

+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

 






____________________________________________________________
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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/46b5d57c/attachment.htm>

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 18 16:20:40 2014
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:20:40 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative -
 RFC
In-Reply-To: <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba>
References:  <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>,<732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <DUB111-W9973827089711FED9B9258B4880@phx.gbl>

I would go for CS to participate if the request to conduct own nominations for representation is accepted. It is easier to shape/influence processes if we are part of them.
RgdsGrace

From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com
To: jmalcolm at eff.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:31:17 +1100
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC






At this point of time discussions are going on in a number of forums as 
regards participation, not just here; and it would be helpful if the debate was 
about whether to participate or not, not about who said what when. 
 
As an aid to this, and perhaps to focus discussion a little, here is a 
brief summary of some of the arguments for and against that I have seen 
advanced. Not a complete list, but perhaps this might help some people to 
understand that other people have perspectives that differ from their own. i 
would urge people to add their own perspectives to these so that an informed 
decision is made.
 
 
 
FOR INVOLVEMENT
With ITU a governments only forum 
and no real will to change, and IGF as a forum with no power to make 
recommendations or take decisions and again no will to change, there is no 
credible venue to initiate action on non technical issues or issues not within 
the remit of Istar organisations These would include surveillance issues, human 
rights issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few.
The solid commitment to 
NetMundial principles promised, if carried out in practice, would create a 
credible and open initiative 
There is a need for a representative forum capable of moving us 
forward on a range of issues not covered by existing 
institutions
Participation is strongly 
supported by some sections of civil society
 
AGAINST 
INVOLVEMENT
The last thing we need is a 
corporate takeover of internet governance and this could become 
that
ISOC has withdrawn 

Participation is strongly opposed 
by some sections of civil society
This initiative has a track 
record of poor communication
 
Ian Peter


 

From: Jeremy Malcolm 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:53 PM
To: Best Bits 
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative 
- RFC
 

By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the Just 
Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the NETmundial 
Initiative, and you may have also have read some false information that Best 
Bits and other networks represented on the Civil Society Coordination Group 
(CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As Ian Peter's clarifying message 
setting out the truth of the matter should have made clear, that is *not* the 
case.  All that has happened is that the we have obtained as much assurance 
as we can that *if* we decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF 
and CGI.br) will accept our self-nomination process 
rather than choosing civil society representatives independently.
 
Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about 
whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been expressed 
pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical about the 
NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning ISOC and JNC give for 
boycotting it is rather specious, because they characterise the initiative as 
being something that it doesn't purport to be - ie. a single central 
policy-making body for Internet governance. This is an alarmist critique that 
turns the NETmundial Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.
 
So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we should 
bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I remain deeply 
conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of factual pro and con 
arguments rather than oversimplifications about the 1% taking over the 
Internet.  Also note that a few civil society representatives, including 
Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it already and are featured on the carousel 
message on the front page of netmundial.org.
 
So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, 
please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.
 



-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org 
 
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
 
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World 
::




____________________________________________________________
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 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141118/52db3bb8/attachment.htm>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Wed Nov 19 02:29:51 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:59:51 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative -
 RFC
In-Reply-To: <DUB111-W9973827089711FED9B9258B4880@phx.gbl>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>,<732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba> <DUB111-W9973827089711FED9B9258B4880@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <546C46EF.7030206@ITforChange.net>

Often we seem to be saying that participation is sufficient end in itself

for what purpose
for whose gain
who do we represent in our participation
who will lose by the participation
who holds the power in the participation forum/ makes the rules of the game
how much can we fool ourselves about the power we have in the forum

These questions are extremely important to engage with.
On the other hand, we can only wake up those who are sleeping (and 
hopefully there are many who may wake up at this point - of a 
neo-liberal attempt to capture of global governance), not those who 
pretend to be....

regards
Guru


On Wednesday 19 November 2014 02:50 AM, Grace Githaiga wrote:
> I would go for CS to participate if the request to conduct own 
> nominations for representation is accepted. It is easier to 
> shape/influence processes if we are part of them.
>
> Rgds
> Grace
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> To: jmalcolm at eff.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:31:17 +1100
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial 
> Initiative - RFC
>
> At this point of time discussions are going on in a number of forums 
> as regards participation, not just here; and it would be helpful if 
> the debate was about whether to participate or not, not about who said 
> what when.
> As an aid to this, and perhaps to focus discussion a little, here is a 
> brief summary of some of the arguments for and against that I have 
> seen advanced. Not a complete list, but perhaps this might help some 
> people to understand that other people have perspectives that differ 
> from their own. i would urge people to add their own perspectives to 
> these so that an informed decision is made.
>
> FOR INVOLVEMENT
>
> With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF 
> as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and 
> again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action 
> on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar 
> organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights 
> issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few.
>
> The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out 
> in practice, would create a credible and open initiative
>
> There is a need fora representative forum capable of moving us forward 
> on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions
>
> Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society
>
> AGAINST INVOLVEMENT
>
> The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance 
> and this could become that
>
> ISOC has withdrawn
>
> Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society
>
> This initiative has a track record of poor communication
>
> Ian Peter
>
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:53 PM
> *To:* Best Bits <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative 
> - RFC
> By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the 
> Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the 
> NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false 
> information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil 
> Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate.  As 
> Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter 
> should have made clear, that is *not* the case.  All that has happened 
> is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we 
> decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br 
> <http://CGI.br>) will accept our self-nomination process rather than 
> choosing civil society representatives independently.
> Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about 
> whether to proceed further or not.  Some views have already been 
> expressed pro and con.  I have been (and remain) publicly critical 
> about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning 
> ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they 
> characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport 
> to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet 
> governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial 
> Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.
> So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we 
> should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I 
> remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of 
> factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about 
> the 1% taking over the Internet.  Also note that a few civil society 
> representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it 
> already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of 
> netmundial.org <http://netmundial.org>.
> So what do people think?  If you haven't already shared your views, 
> please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141119/4439e765/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Nov 19 04:05:31 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:05:31 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL
 INITIATIVE
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0GOkLeejVAEYgdrqM3M-0pk0mCF=AyjVOpwynFpfisMng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba>
	<546AD542.20702@itforchange.net>
	<7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba>
	<CAHyAo0GOkLeejVAEYgdrqM3M-0pk0mCF=AyjVOpwynFpfisMng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20141119100531.0d6e36f7@swan.bollow.ch>

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:41:07 +0530
Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just Net Coalition's position could be considered rather rushed.

NMI was initially announced 28 August 2014. On September 2, I
attended a meeting in Istanbul with WEF's team for NMI (at that time,
WEF was still along in driving NMI). On November 6, the newly revised
NMI was launched, with changes in some areas but no significant changes
to the underlying ideology.

Hence there has been no shortage of time to become sufficiently deeply
informed about the ideological underpinnings of NMI and to be now quite
sure that we want to reject NMI on that basis -- as explained in
http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan .

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, JNC

From mahimakaul at orfonline.org  Wed Nov 19 06:37:49 2014
From: mahimakaul at orfonline.org (Mahima Kaul)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:07:49 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Cyfy 2014 Outcome Statement; and announcing Cyfy 2015:
 October 14-16
Message-ID: <CAJ7LvAKmy6E2_=kugz+rhbZoSdQigDT86L7o1dTcxPc1ddOJcg@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings from ORF!

We are pleased to share the *Cyfy 2014: Outcome Statement* with you,
attached to this email.

Also find links to:

Videos from Cyfy 2014: http://cyfy.org/gallery/videos/
Pictures from Cyfy 2014: http://cyfy.org/photograph/?events=cyfy-2014
<http://cyfy.org/photograph/?events=cyfy-2014>
Information on speakers and transcripts of speeches:
http://cyfy.org/event/cyfy-2014/
Outcome Statement 2014:
http://cyfy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Cyfy-2014-Outcome-Statement-.pdf

We are also pleased to share with you the dates for *Cyfy 2015: October
14-16 in New Delhi, India.* Please do save these dates as you plan your
schedule for the coming year.

Team Cyfy has already started work on next years conference and please do
not hesitate to contact Mahima Kaul (mahimakaul at orfonline.org) separately
if you would like to join us as a partner/sponsor for 2015.

Warmly,

-- 
Mahima Kaul
Fellow
Head, Cyber and Media Initiative
Observer Research Foundation
20 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi 110002
India

Landline: 91143520020 ext 2129
Cell: +919910170854
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141119/ad2510d2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Cyfy 2014 Outcome Statement .pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 492808 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141119/ad2510d2/attachment.pdf>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Nov 19 14:59:24 2014
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 01:29:24 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
	<CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
	<0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>
	<4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
	<CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some
light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and
how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great
respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder
whether I'm missing something here.

For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of
civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as
earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want
to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider
community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
themselves some fixed seats.

I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means
seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are
already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list
too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give
feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed
under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing
we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would
happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the
initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have
had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go
ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF
made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the
individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the
structure as a whole, I am not so certain)

I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the
constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and
others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we
could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.

Thanks and best,
Anja





On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
> Society members here.
>
> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table
> our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ
> is not met.
>
> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont
> think we should miss out.
>
> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
> interested in the NMI.
>
> I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>
> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.
>
> All for now
>
> Nnenna
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
>> Jeremy,
>>
>> Thanks for your email.
>>
>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.
>>
>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and
>> impact.
>>
>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with
>> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind
>> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my
>> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that
>> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie"
>> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple
>> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and
>> growing?
>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo,
>> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has
>> nothing to do with IG they told us.
>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they
>> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.
>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>> than IANA for example?
>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes
>> to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the
>> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to
>> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are
>> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative
>> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more
>> "values".
>>
>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS
>> should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness
>> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone
>> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>
>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their
>> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that
>> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after
>> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest,
>> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their
>> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please
>> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>
>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live
>> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens,
>> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any
>> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are
>> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of
>> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of
>> the WEF.
>>
>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC
>> is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more
>> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a
>> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current
>> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes
>> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often
>> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When
>> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply
>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they
>> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other
>> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work,
>> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would
>> unleash violence.
>>
>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias
>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as
>> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>
>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society
>> participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should
>> pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda,
>> and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be
>> fair.
>>
>> JC
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
>> <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on
>> civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>
>>
>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about
>> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this
>> list.
>>
>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to
>> non JNC members:
>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet
>> Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald
>> about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)
>>
>>
>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>
>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters
>> to create a "UN Security Council”
>>
>>
>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>
>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>> Chehadé: ...
>>
>>
>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative
>> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet]
>> governance”.
>>
>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of
>> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what
>> was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different
>> participants.
>>
>>
>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>> meeting. On this much we agree.
>>
>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen
>> in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN
>> and CGIbr.
>>
>>
>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>> certainly have (
>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other
>> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of
>> the Initiative.
>>
>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list,
>> two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>
>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>>
>>
>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because
>> I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few
>> hours later.  But I write this brief response just because you suggested in
>> most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can
>> respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the
>> conversation.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/3ad1f6e4/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Nov 19 15:45:59 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:45:59 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_The_United_Nations_and_the_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?Internet=E2=80=94What=E2=80=99s_Next_=E2=80=93_A_Recap_of_the_I?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?TU_Plenipotentiary?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0k-1QKhk3f1QXQwZNTP7nz=PMp=_FF5cLJw6Lf5MFgbg@mail.gmail.com>

This starts in a few minutes. The ITU Plenipot is the telecom policy
equivalent of a marathon, a solid 3 weeks of intense wonking.  We will hear
today from some of the delegates about how it went. As a prelim read up
Kathy Brown's Final Reflections on Plenipot 14
<http://www.internetsociety.org//blog/public-policy/2014/11/final-reflections-plenipot-14>

 joly posted: " Today, Wednesday 19 November 2014 the Greater Washington DC
Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) presents The United Nations and
the Internet—What’s Next – A Recap of the #ITU Plenipotentiary . Every four
years, the members of the UN’s International"


[image: isoc dc plenipot debrief] Today,* Wednesday 19 November 2014*
the *Greater
Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society <http://www.isoc-dc.org/>*
(ISOC-DC) presents *The United Nations and the Internet—What’s Next – A
Recap of the #ITU Plenipotentiary
<http://www.isoc-dc.org/2014/11/the-united-nations-and-the-internet-whats-next-a-recap-of-the-itu-plenipotentiary/>
*. Every four years, the members of the UN’s International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) hold a Plenipotentiary conference to set
goals, determine the ITU’s budget, and elect officers. This three-week
meeting, held in Busan, Korea, ended in early November and attracted more
attention than usual because of several proposals to give governments more
control over the operations of Internet (e.g. routing, IP address
allocation, and Internet domain names). Many fear these could enable
censorship, violate privacy and limit innovation. Other, less controversial
initiatives discussed in Busan would support the growth of broadband in
developing countries, make the ITU more inclusive and transparent, and
provide better information on how to make networks more secure and robust.
This audience participation event will voice many different perspectives on
the ITU and its role in shaping the future of the Internet. Discussion
Leaders: *Fiona Alexander*, Associate Administrator for International
Affairs, NTIA; *Leslie Martinkovics*, Director of International Public
Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Verizon; *Carolina Rossini*, Vice President,
International Policy and Strategy, Public Knowledge; Moderator;* Sally
Wentworth*, Vice President of Global Public Policy Development, The
Internet Society. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society
Livestream <https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/PP14Debrief>*
channel.





*What: The United Nations and the Internet—What’s Next – A Recap of the
#ITU Plenipotentiary
<http://www.isoc-dc.org/2014/11/the-united-nations-and-the-internet-whats-next-a-recap-of-the-itu-plenipotentiary/>
Where: Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington DC When: Wednesday
19 November 2014 4pm-5:30pm EST | 21:00-22:30 UTC Webcast:
https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/PP14Debrief
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/PP14Debrief> Twitter: @isocdc +
#plenipot
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=isocdc%20plenipot&src=typd>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7227#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7227#comments>





*Permalink*:
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7227



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141119/b5607e9a/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Nov 19 15:56:31 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:56:31 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain
 in tax in 2013: study
Message-ID: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-tax-ceopay-idUSKCN0J20CJ201
41118

These are the big biz folks who will now be multistakeholderizing through
their agent the WEF at the NMI.

Anyone want to bet how long before they take up the issues surrounding the
use of the Internet for tax avoidance and come up with a suitably
"multi-stakeholder" i.e. corporate friendly solution.

M


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Nov 19 16:24:36 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:24:36 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more
 than they pain in tax in 2013: study
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxh8ZWGuSpPgHm5HO-_kv=1ULPV=k5uucg84Ve4FpmrUEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxh8ZWGuSpPgHm5HO-_kv=1ULPV=k5uucg84Ve4FpmrUEw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <212401d0043f$424d3030$c6e79090$@gmail.com>

Many, even most independent observers no longer consider the US a democracy but rather a form of representative plutocracy (an electoral system dominated/controlled by the rich).  

 

The WEF/NMI is an attempt to project this aberration to becoming the governance structure initially for the Internet but according to their own documents, ultimately for all global governance.

 

M

 

From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:10 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Seven big U.S. companies paid CEOs more than they pain in tax in 2013: study

 

 

 

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:56 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-tax-ceopay-idUSKCN0J20CJ201
41118

 

Do you not understand that the system of representative democracy gave us the current regime of tax avoidance being legal?


 


These are the big biz folks who will now be multistakeholderizing through
their agent the WEF at the NMI.
  

Anyone want to bet how long before they take up the issues surrounding the
use of the Internet for tax avoidance and come up with a suitably
"multi-stakeholder" i.e. corporate friendly solution.

 

Don't demonise the Internet.  The current system of dodging taxes though offshore shell companies means they don't need to do it via the Internet.


 


M



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




-- 

Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141119/08bbb535/attachment.htm>

From iza at anr.org  Thu Nov 20 00:50:21 2014
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:50:21 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Notes from World Internet Conference, "Wuzhen Summit" in
 China
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKiofQebRROGbw1DoZP+My-Y6bqiurMqeTMeNzL1U8_AOQ@mail.gmail.com>

I am taking notes of the sessions I am attending - realtime ones using
Google Doc.

Now it is Day 2, afternoon, "Security and Cooperation in Cyberspace"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYdPeOrnWRuGbjbXStAeQHJ3BcbQ0j_ARw20eqcnuj0/edit


izumi

-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/76febaa5/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Nov 20 02:17:43 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:17:43 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>	<CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>	<0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>	<4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>	<CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546D9597.1080702@apc.org>

Dear all

I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
IG, so apologies for not participating.

Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there
are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process
a try.

I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. 
I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
legitimate and clear.

I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and
white'.

My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August
have actually been addressed.

I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its
mechanisms.

But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to
many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive 
democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
processes and mechanisms.

I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.

My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
following:

- a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
- a limited timeframe
- agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
continue or not


My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.

This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
we can always withdraw.

Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,
to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive
processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that
backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial
would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,
internet governance.

Anriette


On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
> some light on why their government has decided to support this
> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful?
> I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and
> can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>
> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the
> Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a
> new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have
> already given themselves some fixed seats.
>
> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others
> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at
> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would
> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel
> like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to
> rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay
> them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain
> a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of
> our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is
> something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me
> in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual
> initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the
> structure as a whole, I am not so certain)
>
> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
> forward.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com
> <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African
>     Civil Society members here.
>
>     My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>     table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>     withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>
>     I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in
>     Africa, I dont think we should miss out.
>
>     NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to
>     participate.  From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons
>     were already very interested in the NMI.
>
>     I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT
>     to participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>
>     Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people.
>     And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>     participate.
>
>     All for now
>
>     Nnenna
>
>     On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>     Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>         Jeremy,
>
>         Thanks for your email.
>
>         Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as
>         we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would
>         simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even
>         though we are in real politics.
>
>         Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better
>         effect and impact. 
>
>         What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers
>         or participants is that the initiative has more than a
>         troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an
>         overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en
>         blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three
>         players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper
>         pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics
>         behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>         for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the
>         partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you
>         always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a
>         screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line.
>         No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
>         - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that
>         the US refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>         - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep
>         maturing and growing?
>         - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>          insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't
>         encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to
>         please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to
>         really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with
>         IG they told us.
>         - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against
>         the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly
>         in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data,
>         beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages?
>         This is a real good debate for CS.
>         - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More
>         important than IANA for example? 
>         - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas
>         when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the
>         ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its
>         mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping
>         out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently
>         ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative
>         abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also
>         create more "values".
>
>         I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>         Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story
>         is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS,
>         and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership
>         crisis wrote someone today.
>
>         Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle
>         CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We
>         had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get
>         principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so
>         difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the
>         right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open,
>         honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating
>         distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>         boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we
>         all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>
>         So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have
>         a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments,
>         citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the
>         growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the
>         face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing,
>         because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF.
>         You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that
>         are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now,
>         instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about
>         the comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>
>         Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own
>         mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and
>         reaching more and more people. We should not care about that.
>         We should care about having a collective action that would
>         oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take
>         more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to
>         convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This
>         has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth
>         the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on
>         the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders
>         had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply
>         gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few
>         guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It
>         could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a
>         disruption that would unleash violence.
>
>         JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough,
>         our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no
>         corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a
>         profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric
>         wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we
>         are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>
>         There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as
>         civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we
>         all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as
>         long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes
>         putting their money in the debate. That would be fair.
>
>         JC
>
>          
>
>         Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>
>>         On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>>         Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>         <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first
>>>         email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to
>>>         elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues"
>>>         you are referring to,
>>
>>         Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog
>>         post about this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org/>,
>>         because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list.
>>
>>>         The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I
>>>         do listen to non JNC members:
>>>         - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to
>>>         spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing
>>>         world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that
>>>         understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)
>>
>>         Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>
>>>         - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from
>>>         some quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>>
>>         A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>
>>>         - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans,
>>>         ... Fadi Chehadé: ...
>>
>>         None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>>         Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for
>>         global [Internet] governance”.
>>
>>>         Based on these official and public statement, I can only
>>>         read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with
>>>         JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up
>>>         (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor
>>>         the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated
>>>         ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different
>>>         participants.
>>
>>         I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial
>>         Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a
>>         hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.
>>
>>>         So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that
>>>         convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges
>>>         the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the
>>>         diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>>
>>         Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part
>>         personally I certainly have
>>         (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). 
>>         What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the
>>         NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by
>>         impugning the motives of other civil society groups and
>>         falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the
>>         Initiative.
>>
>>         Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant
>>         which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have
>>         subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as
>>         well as one against).
>>
>>>         By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the
>>>         BestBits list):
>>
>>         I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right
>>         now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be
>>         boarding a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief
>>         response just because you suggested in most recent mail that
>>         I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond to
>>         the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the
>>         conversation.
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Jeremy Malcolm
>>         Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>         Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>         https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
>>         jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>
>>         Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>>         :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>              bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>         <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/80e89d6f/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Nov  1 13:42:43 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:42:43 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)
In-Reply-To: <DA5BCF87-F566-4BDF-A68B-8E24E5E52CC6@difference.com.au>
References: <DA5BCF87-F566-4BDF-A68B-8E24E5E52CC6@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com>

Coming in late and agreeing with my JNC colleagues I'll add only a few
points 

1.       "Openness"-I've discussed "openness" and its enemies in a rather
lengthy series of blogposts and publications which I'm delighted to see
being paralleled in a range of academic discussions on these issues

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting
-for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emergi
ng-data-divide/

The ideal that these nerdy revolutionaries are pursuing is not, as with
previous generations-justice, freedom, democracy-rather it is "openness" as
in Open Data, Open Information, Open Government. Precisely what is meant by
"openness" is never (at least certainly not in the context of this
conference) really defined in a form that an outsider could grapple with
(and perhaps critique).  Rather it was a pervasive and animating good
intention-a grail to be pursued by warriors off on a joust with various
governmental dragons. Their armaments in this instance (and to an outsider
many of them are magical indeed) are technical skills and zeal sufficient to
slay any bureaucrat or resistant politician's rationalizations and
resistances to being "open"-i.e. not turning their information treasure
chests into universally accessible nodes in a seamless global datascape.

If I seem a bit skeptical/cynical - less than true believing - its not
because I don't believe in this goal of "openness" (who could be churlish
enough to support things that are closed-closed systems, closed doors,
closed minds-you get the picture), its just that I see a huge disconnect
between the idealism and the passionate belief in the rightness of their
cause and the profound failure to have any clear idea of what precisely that
cause is and where it is likely to take them (and us) in the very near
future.

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-developm
ent%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/

 

It is hard (from this paper) to see how a commitment to "open development"
or "open ICT4D" is much more than a commitment to further enabling the
(already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered.

 

White Noise: On the Limits of Openness (Living Book Mix): Gary Hall 

http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/books/Open_science/Introduction

 

2.       Transparency

Thanks for your elaboration on the notion of "transparency and MSism", it is
quite useful both for what it includes but rather more interestingly for
what is not included.  

 

As I'm sure you know the notion of "transparency" is generally yoked with
the notion of "accountability".  This isn't simply for catch phrase
purposes.  "Transparency and accountability" are linked together because one
is necessary for and supportive of the other. 

 

To have accountability you need to have transparency and the primary
function of transparency is to lead to or enable accountability.  

 

The fact that you almost completely omit any reference to accountability in
your exposition and give no clear indication of how "transparency" as you
present it is actually linked to any structures of "accountability" is
fatally indicative of a fundamental flaw in the approach to MSism you are
presenting.  It is great if MS process are fully transparent.  But so what,
for whom or why does it matter if I or anyone knows how decisions are made
if they are being made by unaccountable (MS) elites/actors or through
unaccountable non-democratic (anti-democratic) processes. 

 

Democracy, at least according to any document I've ever seen, is
fundamentally about "accountability"-accountability of decision makers to
those on whose behalf decisions are being, accountability to the broad
public interest (rather than individual private interests-ever hear about
conflict of interest laws), accountability to laws determining formal
processes of decision making within democratic frameworks. "Transparency" is
one of the necessary tools for achieving this "accountability". a tool
towards accountability not an end in itself, which in practice would be and
is a pointless and wasteful exercise of attempting to hide in plain sight.

 

Transparency without accountability in a system of governance may quite
correctly describe your experience of MSism in ICANN (from many reports this
is quite accurate) and unfortunately may apply to many current formally
democratic systems of governance but is this a "principle" on which you want
to build your MSist governance sandcastle.

 

3.       Consensus 

My JNC colleagues have I think quite correctly pointed to the absurdity of
"consensus" as a governance principle.  As they have pointed out such
consensus is impossible in the real (policy) world and particularly where
allocative decisions need to be made (where there are winners and losers).
Rather than suggest what is in effect a procedural/technical aspect of
decision making (there are an almost infinite number of ways of arriving at
decisions including of course "consensus") I would have thought it perhaps
more appropriate to agree on the principle that the outcome of the decision
making processes should be decisions which optimize the public good.
Unfortunately your "consensus principle" is a clear attempt to hard wire
into Internet (and other?) decision making a process whose outcome
inevitably and necessarily must be the optimization of private (stakeholder)
interests.

 

M  

                                 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 3:22 AM
To: Best Bits
Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)

 

            So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its
principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having
principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as
to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational
organisation). 

            

            And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think
clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one. 

 

            So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the
principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a
relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009),
and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that
many of my assumptions are wrong

            

            The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for
what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because
having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly
not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves
well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral
forms (which really have only states as full participants, other
stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc
multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the
confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN
and closed forms such as WEF. 

            

            So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS
participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF,
etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate. 

 

            I would argue that this principle of openness is more important
than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal
stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of
fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but
that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder
affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the
WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one,
feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than
with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important
principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of
course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict
gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU.
Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the
ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes. 

 

            I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden
participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large
proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of
commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a
principle per se. 

 

            There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master
the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and
travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS
proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical
barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such
organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does
simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for
almost all sessions, etc. 

 

            Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to
operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high
degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think
this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to
decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and
serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant,
any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the
positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my
case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast
majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded,
transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into
multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm. 

            And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with
multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The
ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and
restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly
tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming
increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic
nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy,
for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to
treaty negotiation text. 

            Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of
non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is
a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the
ITU in its more closed era, etc. 

 

            It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such
as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that
are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals
involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy
should be a default. 

 

            It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and
transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong
interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is
acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record,
manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately
lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is
both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of
commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret,
but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And
of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible
to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if
effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing
transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to
know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a
positive value. 

 

            And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to
consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A
commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad
consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that
emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely
terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to
be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it
through elected legislatures.

It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact
definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its
processes, and there are several more  being used in the IG space), and some
may be more practical or desirable than others. 

 

            And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that
commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they
dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The
JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and
while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear
what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that
attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this
is considered desirable. 

            

            It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires
identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this
is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for
voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there
is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes,
so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is
strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an
explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise
would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1
state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely
varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear
any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly
be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of
multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a
principle or not. 

 

            So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of
MS processes. 

The TL:DR summary - 

Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without
gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation. 

Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and
open to all who wish to participate by default. And 

Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus,
other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But
consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be
preferred to majority voting procedures. 

 

And my impression is that the JNC position:

- does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but
prevent commercial entities from full participation. 

- favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this
principle as MSism advocates. 

- favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over
consensus based processes. 

I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for
example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on
document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy
for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases
where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is
worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not
simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are
rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to
a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement
with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles. 

 

I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in
principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in
actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but
its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on
transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try
hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could
do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be
improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for
improvement of existing fora would be useful. 

 

Regards

 

David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/8da4194c/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Nov 20 03:04:41 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:04:41 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <546D9597.1080702@apc.org>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
 <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CADFgh10DPxGaXMKtmj5GNZOu=_YRXz8AQecBX7Nnid7kVSenbw@mail.gmail.com>

+1000

Nnenna

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
wrote:

>  Dear all
>
> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members
> about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings,
> evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for
> not participating.
>
> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also
> asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are
> concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.
>
> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and
> I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also
> feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and
> clear.
>
> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian
> had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'.
>
> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed
> at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have
> actually been addressed.
>
> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its
> mechanisms.
>
> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to many
> but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive  democratic
> multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer
> connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and
> mechanisms.
>
> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>
> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
> following:
>
> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
> - a limited timeframe
> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
> continue or not
>
>
> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely
> to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together
> prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had
> impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it
> meets the criteria important to us.
>
> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out
> not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can
> always withdraw.
>
> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,
> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive
> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that
> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial
> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,
> internet governance.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>  On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>  Dear all,
>
>  A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
> some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative,
> and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great
> respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder
> whether I'm missing something here.
>
>  For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as
> earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want
> to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider
> community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
> themselves some fixed seats.
>
>  I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly
> are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list
> too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give
> feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed
> under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing
> we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would
> happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the
> initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have
> had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go
> ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF
> made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the
> individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the
> structure as a whole, I am not so certain)
>
>  I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia
> and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how
> we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.
>
>  Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>   Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>> Society members here.
>>
>>  My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table
>> our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ
>> is not met.
>>
>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>> dont think we should miss out.
>>
>>  NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>> interested in the NMI.
>>
>>  I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>
>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.
>>
>>  All for now
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>>  On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>   Jeremy,
>>>
>>>  Thanks for your email.
>>>
>>>  Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both
>>> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.
>>>
>>>  Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>>> and impact.
>>>
>>>  What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with
>>> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind
>>> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my
>>> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that
>>> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie"
>>> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple
>>> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and
>>> growing?
>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>>  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo,
>>> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has
>>> nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they
>>> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.
>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>>> than IANA for example?
>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the
>>> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to
>>> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are
>>> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative
>>> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more
>>> "values".
>>>
>>>  I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless,
>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness
>>> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone
>>> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>>
>>>  Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their
>>> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that
>>> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after
>>> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest,
>>> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their
>>> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please
>>> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>>
>>>  So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live
>>> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens,
>>> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any
>>> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are
>>> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of
>>> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of
>>> the WEF.
>>>
>>>  Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more
>>> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a
>>> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current
>>> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes
>>> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often
>>> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When
>>> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply
>>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they
>>> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other
>>> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work,
>>> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would
>>> unleash violence.
>>>
>>>  JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our
>>> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as
>>> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>>
>>>  There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we
>>> should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden
>>> agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That
>>> would be fair.
>>>
>>>  JC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>>
>>>  On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
>>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on
>>> civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>>
>>>
>>>  Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about
>>> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this
>>> list.
>>>
>>>  The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>>> to non JNC members:
>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet
>>> Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald
>>> about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)
>>>
>>>
>>>  Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>>
>>>  - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>>>
>>>
>>>  A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>>
>>>  - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>>> Chehadé: ...
>>>
>>>
>>>  None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>>> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global
>>> [Internet] governance”.
>>>
>>>  Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of
>>> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what
>>> was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different
>>> participants.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>>> meeting. On this much we agree.
>>>
>>>   So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen
>>> in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN
>>> and CGIbr.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>>> certainly have (
>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other
>>> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of
>>> the Initiative.
>>>
>>>  Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which
>>> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>>
>>>  By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>>>
>>>
>>>  I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a
>>> few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because you
>>> suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway,
>>> others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me
>>> monopolising the conversation.
>>>
>>>   --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>
>>>  Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>>  :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/d8ea5554/attachment.htm>

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Thu Nov 20 04:43:07 2014
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:43:07 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10DPxGaXMKtmj5GNZOu=_YRXz8AQecBX7Nnid7kVSenbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
	<CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
	<0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>
	<4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
	<CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<546D9597.1080702@apc.org>
	<CADFgh10DPxGaXMKtmj5GNZOu=_YRXz8AQecBX7Nnid7kVSenbw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPqXoj+wneDDJTLrKsLjn8-RWUSj6Uh20ci1kg74dOZrroZD8g@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to Anriette and Wolfgang

2014-11-20 9:04 GMT+01:00 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:

> +1000
>
> Nnenna
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
>
>>  Dear all
>>
>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members
>> about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings,
>> evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for
>> not participating.
>>
>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also
>> asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are
>> concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.
>>
>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and
>> I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also
>> feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and
>> clear.
>>
>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and
>> white'.
>>
>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed
>> at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have
>> actually been addressed.
>>
>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its
>> mechanisms.
>>
>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
>> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to many
>> but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive  democratic
>> multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer
>> connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and
>> mechanisms.
>>
>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>>
>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>> following:
>>
>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>> - a limited timeframe
>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
>> continue or not
>>
>>
>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get
>> together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation
>> has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and
>> whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>>
>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
>> out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we
>> can always withdraw.
>>
>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,
>> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive
>> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that
>> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial
>> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,
>> internet governance.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>  On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>  Dear all,
>>
>>  A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
>> some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative,
>> and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great
>> respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder
>> whether I'm missing something here.
>>
>>  For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as
>> earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want
>> to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider
>> community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
>> themselves some fixed seats.
>>
>>  I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly
>> are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list
>> too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give
>> feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed
>> under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing
>> we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would
>> happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the
>> initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have
>> had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go
>> ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF
>> made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the
>> individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the
>> structure as a whole, I am not so certain)
>>
>>  I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia
>> and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how
>> we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.
>>
>>  Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>>> Society members here.
>>>
>>>  My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn
>>> if XYZ is not met.
>>>
>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>>> dont think we should miss out.
>>>
>>>  NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>>> interested in the NMI.
>>>
>>>  I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>>
>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.
>>>
>>>  All for now
>>>
>>> Nnenna
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Jeremy,
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks for your email.
>>>>
>>>>  Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both
>>>> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.
>>>>
>>>>  Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>>>> and impact.
>>>>
>>>>  What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with
>>>> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind
>>>> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my
>>>> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that
>>>> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie"
>>>> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple
>>>> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
>>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>>>> and growing?
>>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>>>  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo,
>>>> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has
>>>> nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they
>>>> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.
>>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>>>> than IANA for example?
>>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the
>>>> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to
>>>> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are
>>>> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative
>>>> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more
>>>> "values".
>>>>
>>>>  I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>>>> Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant
>>>> of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>>>
>>>>  Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their
>>>> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that
>>>> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after
>>>> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest,
>>>> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their
>>>> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please
>>>> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>>>
>>>>  So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
>>>> debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live
>>>> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens,
>>>> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any
>>>> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are
>>>> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of
>>>> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of
>>>> the WEF.
>>>>
>>>>  Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more
>>>> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a
>>>> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current
>>>> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes
>>>> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often
>>>> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When
>>>> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply
>>>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they
>>>> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other
>>>> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work,
>>>> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would
>>>> unleash violence.
>>>>
>>>>  JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our
>>>> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as
>>>> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>>>
>>>>  There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we
>>>> should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden
>>>> agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That
>>>> would be fair.
>>>>
>>>>  JC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>  On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On
>>>> a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on
>>>> civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post
>>>> about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic
>>>> for this list.
>>>>
>>>>  The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>>>> to non JNC members:
>>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew
>>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>>>> Initiative)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>>>
>>>>  - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>>>
>>>>  - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>>>> Chehadé: ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>>>> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global
>>>> [Internet] governance”.
>>>>
>>>>  Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of
>>>> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different
>>>> participants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>>>> meeting. On this much we agree.
>>>>
>>>>   So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen
>>>> in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN
>>>> and CGIbr.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>>>> certainly have (
>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other
>>>> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of
>>>> the Initiative.
>>>>
>>>>  Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which
>>>> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>>>
>>>>  By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a
>>>> few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because you
>>>> suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway,
>>>> others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me
>>>> monopolising the conversation.
>>>>
>>>>   --
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>> https://eff.org
>>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>>
>>>>  Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>>
>>>>  :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> executive director
>> association for progressive communications
>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 

Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe

Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.

www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter
<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE> ∙
 Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> ∙ Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> ∙ Youtube
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/786b2f43/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 20 05:13:02 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 02:13:02 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <546D9597.1080702@apc.org>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>	<CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>	<0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>	<4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>	<CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org>
Message-ID: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>

So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice.

 

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
Cc: Governance; Best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

 

Dear all

I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating.

Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.

I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear.

I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'.

My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed.

I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms.

But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive  democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms.

I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.

My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following:

- a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
- a limited timeframe 
- agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not


My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.

This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw.

Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance.

Anriette



On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:

Dear all,

 

A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.

 

For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats.

 

I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) 

 

I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.

 

Thanks and best,

Anja

 

 

 

 

 

On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here.

My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met.

I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out.

NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.  From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the NMI.

I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to participate but we cannot ask others not to.

Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.

All for now

Nnenna

 

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

Jeremy,

Thanks for your email.

 

Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.

 

Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact. 

 

What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as

- why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance?

- why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing?

- why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.

- why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.

- why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example? 

- why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values".

 

I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.

 

Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.

 

So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.

 

Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.

 

JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.

 

There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair.

 

JC

 

 

 

Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :





On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

 

I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,

 

Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org/> , because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list.





The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members:

- Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)

 

Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.





- McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council”

 

A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?





- Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ...

 

None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”.





Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants.

 

I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.

 

So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.

 

Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).  What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative.

 

Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against).





By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):

 

I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation.

 

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://eff.org <https://eff.org/> 
jmalcolm at eff.org 

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
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




-- 

Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 






____________________________________________________________
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
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/433c1dc4/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Nov 20 05:26:05 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:26:05 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
 <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>

Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the
more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not
perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
abandoning the pursuit of social justice?

If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
Mandela.  And it is him who said:
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
enemy. Then he becomes your partner."

I will rest my case for now

Nnenna

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you
> are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social
> justice.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette Esterhuysen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
> *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
> *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members
> about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings,
> evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for
> not participating.
>
> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also
> asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are
> concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.
>
> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and
> I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also
> feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and
> clear.
>
> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian
> had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'.
>
> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed
> at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have
> actually been addressed.
>
> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its
> mechanisms.
>
> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to many
> but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive  democratic
> multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer
> connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and
> mechanisms.
>
> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>
> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
> following:
>
> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
> - a limited timeframe
> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
> continue or not
>
>
> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely
> to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together
> prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had
> impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it
> meets the criteria important to us.
>
> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out
> not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can
> always withdraw.
>
> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,
> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive
> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that
> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial
> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,
> internet governance.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
> some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative,
> and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great
> respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder
> whether I'm missing something here.
>
>
>
> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of
> civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as
> earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want
> to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider
> community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
> themselves some fixed seats.
>
>
>
> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means
> seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are
> already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list
> too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give
> feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed
> under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing
> we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would
> happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the
> initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have
> had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go
> ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF
> made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the
> individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the
> structure as a whole, I am not so certain)
>
>
>
> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the
> constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and
> others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we
> could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.
>
>
>
> Thanks and best,
>
> Anja
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
> Society members here.
>
> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table
> our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ
> is not met.
>
> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont
> think we should miss out.
>
> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
> interested in the NMI.
>
> I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>
> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.
>
> All for now
>
> Nnenna
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
> Jeremy,
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
>
>
> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.
>
>
>
> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and
> impact.
>
>
>
> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with
> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind
> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my
> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that
> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie"
> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple
> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
>
> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused
> to discuss mass surveillance?
>
> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and
> growing?
>
> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo,
> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has
> nothing to do with IG they told us.
>
> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they
> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.
>
> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than
> IANA for example?
>
> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes
> to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the
> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to
> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are
> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative
> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more
> "values".
>
>
>
> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS
> should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness
> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone
> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>
>
>
> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their
> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that
> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after
> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest,
> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their
> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please
> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>
>
>
> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and
> launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations
> to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the
> mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are
> failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You
> only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away
> our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time
> and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>
>
>
> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC
> is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more
> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a
> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current
> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes
> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often
> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When
> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply
> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they
> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other
> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work,
> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would
> unleash violence.
>
>
>
> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is
> somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons.
> We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid
> another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as
> we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>
>
>
> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society
> participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should
> pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda,
> and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be
> fair.
>
>
>
> JC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <
> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on
> civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>
>
>
> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about
> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this
> list.
>
>
>
> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to
> non JNC members:
>
> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet
> Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald
> about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)
>
>
>
> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>
>
>
> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters
> to create a "UN Security Council”
>
>
>
> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>
>
>
> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
> Chehadé: ...
>
>
>
> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as
> in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”.
>
>
>
> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of
> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was
> stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different
> participants.
>
>
>
> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
> meeting. On this much we agree.
>
>
>
> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should
> for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the
> making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and
> CGIbr.
>
>
>
> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
> certainly have (
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other
> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of
> the Initiative.
>
>
>
> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list,
> two emails in support, as well as one against).
>
>
>
> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>
>
>
> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I
> am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours
> later.  But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most
> recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond
> to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the
> conversation.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm
>
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
>
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
>
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> executive director
>
> association for progressive communications
>
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>
> anriette at apc.org
>
> www.apc.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/eebf4043/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Nov 20 05:49:06 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:49:06 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba>

Thanks Nnenna.

Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion.

Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated.

The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have already been silenced on this issue.

We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to respect differences of opinion. 

Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC as  “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of social justice.

Ian Peter



From: Nnenna Nwakanma 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
To: michael gurstein 
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as abandoning the pursuit of social justice?


If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson Mandela.  And it is him who said:
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner."


I will rest my case for now


Nnenna


On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

  So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice.



  M





  From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
  Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
  To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
  Cc: Governance; Best Bits
  Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC



  Dear all

  I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating.

  Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.

  I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear.

  I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'.

  My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed.

  I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms.

  But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive  democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms.

  I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.

  My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following:

  - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
  - a limited timeframe 
  - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not


  My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.

  This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw.

  Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance.

  Anriette



  On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:

    Dear all,



    A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.



    For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats.



    I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) 



    I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.



    Thanks and best,

    Anja











    On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

    Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here.

    My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met.

    I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out.

    NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.  

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 20 06:23:47 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 03:23:47 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com> <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <23be01d004b4$741c71f0$5c5555d0$@gmail.com>

Thanks Ian and I am very familiar with APC’s illustrious history.

 

However, I fail to see how providing legitimation for the active participation (dare one say provision of a veto power) to the global 1% via their agent the WEF in the area of global (Internet) governance will make a useful contribution to “creating a more just world”.

 

Perhaps you or someone else can explain this to me.

 

M

 

 

From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:49 AM
To: Nnenna Nwakanma; michael gurstein
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; Governance; Best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

 

Thanks Nnenna.

 

Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion.

 

Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated.

 

The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have already been silenced on this issue.

 

We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to respect differences of opinion. 

 

Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building APC as  “ an international network and non profit organisation that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the pursuit of social justice.

 

Ian Peter

 

 

 

From: Nnenna Nwakanma <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>  

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM

To: michael gurstein <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>  

Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen <mailto:anriette at apc.org>  ; Anja Kovacs <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>  ; Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  ; Best Bits <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>  

Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

 

Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as abandoning the pursuit of social justice?

If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson Mandela.  And it is him who said:
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner."

I will rest my case for now

Nnenna

 

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice.

 

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
Cc: Governance; Best Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

 

Dear all

I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating.

Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.

I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear.

I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'.

My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed.

I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms.

But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive  democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms.

I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.

My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following:

- a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
- a limited timeframe 
- agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not


My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.

This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw.

Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance.

Anriette

On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:

Dear all,

 

A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.

 

For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats.

 

I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain) 

 

I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.

 

Thanks and best,

Anja

 

 

 

 

 

On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here.

My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met.

I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out.

NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.  From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the NMI.

I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to participate but we cannot ask others not to.

Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.

All for now

Nnenna

 

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

Jeremy,

Thanks for your email.

 

Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.

 

Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact. 

 

What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as

- why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance?

- why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing?

- why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.

- why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.

- why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example? 

- why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values".

 

I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.

 

Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.

 

So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.

 

Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.

 

JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.

 

There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair.

 

JC

 

 

 

Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :

 

On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

 

I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,

 

Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org/> , because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list.

 

The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members:

- Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)

 

Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.

 

- McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council”

 

A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?

 

- Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ...

 

None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”.

 

Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants.

 

I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.

 

So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.

 

Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).  What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative.

 

Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against).

 

By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):

 

I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation.

 

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://eff.org <https://eff.org/> 
jmalcolm at eff.org 

 

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

 

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
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




-- 

Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053>  | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 





____________________________________________________________
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
executive director
association for progressive communications
po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org

 

  _____  

____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/55e57196/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Nov 20 06:43:35 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:43:35 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com> <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>

Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) 
Jeanette 

On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>Thanks Nnenna.
>
>Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>opinion.
>
>Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>reciprocated.
>
>The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would
>be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>
>We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
>respect differences of opinion. 
>
>Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>APC as  “ an international network and non profit organisation that
>wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the
>pursuit of social justice.
>
>Ian Peter
>
>
>
>From: Nnenna Nwakanma 
>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>To: michael gurstein 
>Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits 
>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
>Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
>the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
>not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
>abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>
>
>If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
>Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
>enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>
>
>I will rest my case for now
>
>
>Nnenna
>
>
>On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
>some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
>social justice.
>
>
>
>  M
>
>
>
>
>
>From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
>Esterhuysen
>  Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>  To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>  Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
>
>
>  Dear all
>
>I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
>IG, so apologies for not participating.
>
>Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
>there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
>process a try.
>
>I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
>I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>legitimate and clear.
>
>I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
>Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
>and white'.
>
>My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
>August have actually been addressed.
>
>I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
>its mechanisms.
>
>But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
>national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to
>many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive 
>democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>processes and mechanisms.
>
>  I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>
>My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>following:
>
>  - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>  - a limited timeframe 
>- agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
>continue or not
>
>
>My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
>process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>
>This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
>out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
>we can always withdraw.
>
>Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights
>inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
>think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the
>NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
>implement, internet governance.
>
>  Anriette
>
>
>
>  On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>    Dear all,
>
>
>
>A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
>some light on why their government has decided to support this
>initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I
>have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
>help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>
>
>
>For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
>of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
>government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
>themselves some fixed seats.
>
>
>
>I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others
>on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at
>NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would
>be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like
>the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
>things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the
>structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that
>they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
>say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
>representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
>conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
>that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
>not so certain) 
>
>
>
>I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>forward.
>
>
>
>    Thanks and best,
>
>    Anja
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>Society members here.
>
>My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>
>I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>dont think we should miss out.
>
>NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. 
>From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>interested in the NMI.
>
>I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>
>Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>participate.
>
>    All for now
>
>    Nnenna
>
>
>
>On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
>      Jeremy,
>
>      Thanks for your email.
>
>
>
>Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
>not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>politics.
>
>
>
>Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>and impact. 
>
>
>
>What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends
>with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
>tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
>behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
>troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
>such as
>
>- why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>
>- why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>and growing?
>
>- why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, 
>insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>
>- why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
>they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
>CS.
>
>- why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>than IANA for example? 
>
>- why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying
>the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
>ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
>the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their
>innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
>also create more "values".
>
>
>
>I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless,
>CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
>weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>
>
>
>Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it
>not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
>directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We
>are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>
>
>
>So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
>and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we
>live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow
>citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
>not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
>realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done,
>now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
>comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>
>
>
>Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
>more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having
>a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
>current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
>when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
>nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
>mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the
>public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
>through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only
>a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
>equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some
>social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>
>
>
>JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias
>is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales
>as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>
>
>
>There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that
>we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
>hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
>debate. That would be fair.
>
>
>
>      JC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
>On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
>personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
>on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>
>
>
>Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about
>this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this
>list.
>
>
>
>
>
>The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>to non JNC members:
>
>- Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew
>Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>Initiative)
>
>
>
>      Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>
>
>
>
>
>- McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>
>
>
>      A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>
>
>
>
>
>- Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>Chehadé: ...
>
>
>
>None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative
>as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet]
>governance”.
>
>
>
>
>
>Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt)
>of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
>different participants.
>
>
>
>I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>(particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>meeting. On this much we agree.
>
>
>
>So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
>seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
>WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>
>
>
>Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>certainly have
>(http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>endorsement of the Initiative.
>
>
>
>Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
>sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>
>
>
>
>
>   By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>
>
>
>I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because
>you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. 
>Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than
>me monopolising the conversation.
>
>
>
>      -- 
>
>      Jeremy Malcolm
>
>      Senior Global Policy Analyst
>
>      Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
>      https://eff.org
>      jmalcolm at eff.org 
>
>
>
>      Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
>
>
>      :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      ____________________________________________________________
>      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
>
>
>
>
>    -- 
>
>    Dr. Anja Kovacs
>    The Internet Democracy Project
>
>    +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>    www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________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 esterhuysenexecutive
>directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>____________________________________________________________
>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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Thu Nov 20 06:50:19 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:50:19 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <38F10046-6240-4334-91C8-F1A0DF8174D8@theglobaljournal.net>

Dear Nnenna,

Thanks for calling in Mandela. Though, one reflection.

Mandela worked with his enemies for dozens of  years from his cell in jail, then entered the government of De Klerk, joining a government of national coalition with his enemies. Wait, wait, this is not what happened.

He stood up right in his boots, until the power had to admit, with no other choice, that they had to transfer power to him and the majority of the People behind him, in respect of a democratic principle.

Mandela never compromised himself with what he was combatting. He never gave up on his principles. Even though he called for non violence after he came to power be non violent, he would have to admit that violence helped his compatriots to resist the state violence by the South African apartheid machinery. Turning off the electricity grid in part of South Africa was not a friendly project in the eyes of de Klerk. 

Coming back to civil society today, instead of jumping in any bed where some money is expected, some illusion is awaiting for being turned into deception, some vain legitimization of an odd process is given away, or some ridiculous recognition is granted ("now we are part of the WEF circles"), we, civil society should stay in jail until the power comes and states that yes let's discuss the needed shift. That is what did Mandela. He did not compromised by going too early where he had nothing to gain - anything like a ministerial portfolio or any such sweeties -  or anything to lose -for example faith people put into him to change through political means the situation in that country. Mandela was not sponsored by a group of corporations right?  So please let's take a little distance to what is happening right now. Look at what is on the table : one single government that has interest to enter more of its product in the US, one ICANN who is under siege, and the WEF that is looking for more sponsors. Unity is key Nnenna. The current owners of the Internet know that perfectly well and civil society is losing its ethics. Failing, again and again. When did Mandela tried to give it a shot at the Apartheid regime? (not meaning that the asymmetry equates apartheid, but it is a serious global concern).

Yesterday I had the pleasure to meet and talk to Richard Sammans (WEF) at the GIP conference by Diplo. He was at the White House during in the mid-nineties when Al Gore and the Clinton administration decided that the Internet was a critical element of economic domination. Al Gore made his industrial fortune at the times. Ira Magaziner did the job to overtake the root management out of academics hands, with the help of a few insiders such as Vint Cerf and a few others, we all know about that. One casuality: Jon Postel, and one victory: total asymmetry since then on the Internet public policy level. Sammans is a very smart and brilliant product of these years, and it was really nice talking to him. His experience at the Green Fund is of great interest (among other things, how to secure investment in green economy, keeping royalties for property rights to funders). When I mentioned the idea of preferably funding the IGF, he was not rejecting the idea. He said they had been thinking about it. This is something civil society can start discussing with the WEF, even without bringing legitimacy to the high-jacking the NetMundial final paper - I am still waiting to see what are the concrete consequences of that paper, apart from what is going on with the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr. The latter initiative has nothing to do with an invitation to civil society to have a tribune at the next Davos to express their concern. I would find really impressive to have Assange or Snowden invited to Davos next year to engage the transnational business community about the risk that such US policy brings to the world in terms of threat to their own benefits. But this is not what the initiative is about. This initiative is a clear signal that ICANN is feeling the pressure, and I believe Fadi should have another strategy to engage with civil society than simply offering them to go to bed with WEF. It is about the hot potato that ICANN, since Rousseff UN speech, has to deal with on behalf of the US: how to cool down some head of states because their personal privacy was violated... So I cannot imagine that you are suggesting us to contribute to calm down any voice that is standing in front of what is not tolerable by going into that initiative. We agree here, I am convinced.

What I also believe is that this initiative is taking our eyes away from other serious concerns. We at JNC do understand that the new authority created by Bob Kahn, DONA (for Digital Object Naming Authority) is a new critical object of Internet Public Policy - the next stage for the Internet to transform our societies. Interestingly enough this DONA was not created under a Californian/US law setting, like ICANN and IANA, or ISOC and IETF. Bob Khan told me that governments around the world simply told him that they would not use his system of naming objects if it was a US entity. This DONA is about the future Internet of Things: any thought from civil society on this? Therefore this DONA is now a Swiss Foundation, incorporated in January 2014. I can only but imagine that everyone in these lists is curious to learn more about how this foundation will function. I asked Bob Kahn about the similarity between the first IANA and this DONA. I keep his answer for my next Huffington Post. 

I invite you to reflect on what should we expect from such an initiative by ICANN, as did Anriette, or Anja who have had some very good questions. We at JNC analyzed that this exploration was leading nowhere, and a dangerous slop, but  I do respect efforts by those trying to explore a possible positive way forward into that initiative. I still encourage civil society to look after other initiatives (getting together?) (calling for a slot at the next DAVOS, with full liberty of expression) and set their own agenda, instead of trying to accommodate other's. The IGF is still the best bet for civil society with all its flaws and difficulties. There might be some progress there, and victories for civil society, if united. We should be no one little dog.

JC
(sorry for cross postings)

Le 20 nov. 2014 à 11:26, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit :

> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
> 
> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson Mandela.  And it is him who said:
> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
> 
> I will rest my case for now
> 
> Nnenna
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social justice.
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all
> 
> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for not participating.
> 
> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.
> 
> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear.
> 
> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'.
> 
> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually been addressed.
> 
> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its mechanisms.
> 
> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive  democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and mechanisms.
> 
> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
> 
> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the following:
> 
> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
> - a limited timeframe 
> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we continue or not
> 
> 
> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
> 
> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can always withdraw.
> 
> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement, internet governance.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
>  
> 
> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
> 
>  
> 
> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats.
> 
>  
> 
> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain)
> 
>  
> 
> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks and best,
> 
> Anja
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil Society members here.
> 
> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
> 
> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think we should miss out.
> 
> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.  From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the NMI.
> 
> I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to participate but we cannot ask others not to.
> 
> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.
> 
> All for now
> 
> Nnenna
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> Thanks for your email.
> 
>  
> 
> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.
> 
>  
> 
> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect and impact. 
> 
>  
> 
> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
> 
> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance?
> 
> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and growing?
> 
> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
> 
> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.
> 
> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important than IANA for example? 
> 
> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values".
> 
>  
> 
> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
> 
>  
> 
> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
> 
>  
> 
> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.
> 
>  
> 
> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
> 
>  
> 
> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
> 
>  
> 
> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be fair.
> 
>  
> 
> JC
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
> 
>  
> 
> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen to non JNC members:
> 
> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative)
> 
>  
> 
> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
> 
>  
> 
> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi Chehadé: ...
> 
>  
> 
> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet] governance”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants.
> 
>  
> 
> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.
> 
>  
> 
> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
> 
>  
> 
> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).  What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative.
> 
>  
> 
> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
> 
>  
> 
> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the conversation.
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> 
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> 
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> 
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> 
>  
> 
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> 
>  
> 
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
> anriette at apc.org
> www.apc.org
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/549e9a27/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Thu Nov 20 07:20:16 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:20:16 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com> <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net>

Jeanette,

Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in Davos, to start with.

You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.

Thanks
JC


Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) 
> Jeanette 
> 
> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Nnenna.
>> 
>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>> opinion.
>> 
>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>> reciprocated.
>> 
>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would
>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>> 
>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
>> respect differences of opinion. 
>> 
>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>> APC as  “ an international network and non profit organisation that
>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the
>> pursuit of social justice.
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma 
>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>> To: michael gurstein 
>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits 
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>> 
>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>> 
>> 
>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
>> Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>> 
>> 
>> I will rest my case for now
>> 
>> 
>> Nnenna
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
>> social justice.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
>> Esterhuysen
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all
>> 
>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
>> IG, so apologies for not participating.
>> 
>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
>> process a try.
>> 
>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>> legitimate and clear.
>> 
>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
>> and white'.
>> 
>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
>> August have actually been addressed.
>> 
>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
>> its mechanisms.
>> 
>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
>> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to
>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive 
>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>> processes and mechanisms.
>> 
>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>> 
>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>> following:
>> 
>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>> - a limited timeframe 
>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
>> continue or not
>> 
>> 
>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>> 
>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
>> out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
>> we can always withdraw.
>> 
>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights
>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the
>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
>> implement, internet governance.
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> 
>>   Dear all,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
>> some light on why their government has decided to support this
>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I
>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
>> themselves some fixed seats.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others
>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at
>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would
>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like
>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the
>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that
>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
>> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
>> not so certain) 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>> forward.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   Thanks and best,
>> 
>>   Anja
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>> Society members here.
>> 
>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>> 
>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>> dont think we should miss out.
>> 
>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate. 
>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>> interested in the NMI.
>> 
>> I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>> 
>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>> participate.
>> 
>>   All for now
>> 
>>   Nnenna
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> 
>>     Jeremy,
>> 
>>     Thanks for your email.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>> politics.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>> and impact. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends
>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
>> such as
>> 
>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>> 
>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>> and growing?
>> 
>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, 
>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>> 
>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
>> CS.
>> 
>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>> than IANA for example? 
>> 
>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying
>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their
>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
>> also create more "values".
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless,
>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it
>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We
>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we
>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow
>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done,
>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
>> comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
>> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having
>> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the
>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only
>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some
>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias
>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales
>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that
>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
>> debate. That would be fair.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     JC
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about
>> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this
>> list.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>> to non JNC members:
>> 
>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew
>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>> Initiative)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>> Chehadé: ...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative
>> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet]
>> governance”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt)
>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
>> different participants.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>> meeting. On this much we agree.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>> certainly have
>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>> endorsement of the Initiative.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>> flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because
>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. 
>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than
>> me monopolising the conversation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     -- 
>> 
>>     Jeremy Malcolm
>> 
>>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> 
>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> 
>>     https://eff.org
>>     jmalcolm at eff.org 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   -- 
>> 
>>   Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>   The Internet Democracy Project
>> 
>>   +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>   www.internetdemocracy.in
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________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 esterhuysenexecutive
>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/3fdd63b0/attachment.htm>

From renata at webfoundation.org  Thu Nov 20 07:47:50 2014
From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:47:50 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
 <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
 <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>
 <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at the
closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any
effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs.
Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, somehow,
regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against all
citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language
against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to
please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts of
the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just
the result of an event outside the regular events around Internet
Governance is simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big
victory for two of the most important battles for the future of our
knowledge societies, of our free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam
at first sight of the outcome document will show that it certainly fails to
adopt the highest human rights standards.

The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work by
CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the attached
maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries
from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It was
a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but,
paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance
experts, but, except for the very good contributions of privacy experts
like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast
lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key demands.

So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is flawed
and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil Society.
Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher but
lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and concerns
for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of such
principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of
those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and resources
that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among
few.

There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has been
discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are giving
to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.

* This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or position
of the Web Foundation.

Renata



On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Jeanette,
>
> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed information
> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions?
> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about
> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of corporations,
> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs,
> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to
> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a
> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in Davos,
> to start with.
>
> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is this
> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already
> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to bother
> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy
> candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no
> copyright on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing
> this for career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at
> ICANN and a few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for
> those without a comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
>
> Thanks
> JC
>
>
> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled
> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with
> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is
> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who
> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have
> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in
> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those
> who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
> Jeanette
>
> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Nnenna.
>
>
> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>
> opinion.
>
>
> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>
> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>
> reciprocated.
>
>
> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>
> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>
> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would
>
> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>
> some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>
>
> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
>
> respect differences of opinion.
>
>
> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>
> APC as  “ an international network and non profit organisation that
>
> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>
> our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the
>
> pursuit of social justice.
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
> From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>
> To: michael gurstein
>
> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>
> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
>
> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
>
> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
>
> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
>
> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>
>
>
> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
>
> Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>
> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
>
> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>
>
>
> I will rest my case for now
>
>
>
> Nnenna
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
>
> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>
> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
>
> social justice.
>
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
>
> Esterhuysen
>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>
> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>
> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>
> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
>
> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>
> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>
> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
>
> IG, so apologies for not participating.
>
>
> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>
> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
>
> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
>
> process a try.
>
>
> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>
> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
>
> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>
> legitimate and clear.
>
>
> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
>
> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
>
> and white'.
>
>
> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>
> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
>
> August have actually been addressed.
>
>
> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>
> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
>
> its mechanisms.
>
>
> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>
> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
>
> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to
>
> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
>
> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>
> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>
> processes and mechanisms.
>
>
> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>
>
> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>
> following:
>
>
> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>
> - a limited timeframe
>
> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
>
> continue or not
>
>
>
> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>
> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>
> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>
> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
>
> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>
>
> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
>
> out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
>
> we can always withdraw.
>
>
> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>
> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights
>
> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
>
> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the
>
> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
>
> implement, internet governance.
>
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>
>   Dear all,
>
>
>
>
> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
>
> some light on why their government has decided to support this
>
> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I
>
> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
>
> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>
>
>
>
> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
>
> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>
> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>
> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>
> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
>
> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>
> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
>
> themselves some fixed seats.
>
>
>
>
> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>
> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>
> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others
>
> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at
>
> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would
>
> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like
>
> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
>
> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the
>
> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that
>
> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
>
> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
>
> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
>
> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
>
> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
>
> not so certain)
>
>
>
>
> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>
> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>
> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>
> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>
> forward.
>
>
>
>
>   Thanks and best,
>
>
>   Anja
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>
> Society members here.
>
>
> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>
> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>
> withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>
>
> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>
> dont think we should miss out.
>
>
> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
>
> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>
> interested in the NMI.
>
>
> I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>
> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>
>
> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>
> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>
> participate.
>
>
>   All for now
>
>
>   Nnenna
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
>
>     Jeremy,
>
>
>     Thanks for your email.
>
>
>
>
> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
>
> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>
> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>
> politics.
>
>
>
>
> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>
> and impact.
>
>
>
>
> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>
> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>
> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>
> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>
> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends
>
> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
>
> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>
> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
>
> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
>
> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>
> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
>
> such as
>
>
> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>
> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>
>
> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>
> and growing?
>
>
> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>
> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>
> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>
> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>
> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>
>
> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>
> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>
> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
>
> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
>
> CS.
>
>
> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>
> than IANA for example?
>
>
> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>
> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying
>
> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
>
> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
>
> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their
>
> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
>
> also create more "values".
>
>
>
>
> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless,
>
> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
>
> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>
> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>
>
>
>
> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>
> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>
> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it
>
> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
>
> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>
> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>
> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>
> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We
>
> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>
>
>
>
> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
>
> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>
> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we
>
> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow
>
> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
>
> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
>
> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done,
>
> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
>
> comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>
>
>
>
> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>
> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
>
> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having
>
> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
>
> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
>
> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
>
> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
>
> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the
>
> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
>
> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only
>
> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
>
> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some
>
> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>
>
>
>
> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias
>
> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>
> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>
> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales
>
> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>
>
>
>
> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>
> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that
>
> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
>
> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
>
> debate. That would be fair.
>
>
>
>
>     JC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
>
> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
>
> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>
>
>
>
> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post about
>
> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic for this
>
> list.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>
> to non JNC members:
>
>
> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>
> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew
>
> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>
> Initiative)
>
>
>
>
>     Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>
> quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>
>
>
>
>     A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>
> Chehadé: ...
>
>
>
>
> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative
>
> as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet]
>
> governance”.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>
> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>
> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt)
>
> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>
> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
>
> different participants.
>
>
>
>
> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>
> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>
> meeting. On this much we agree.
>
>
>
>
> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>
> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
>
> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
>
> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>
>
>
>
> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>
> certainly have
>
> (
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles
> ).
>
> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>
> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>
> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>
> endorsement of the Initiative.
>
>
>
>
> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
>
> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>
> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>
>
>
>
> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>
> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>
> flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because
>
> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.
>
> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than
>
> me monopolising the conversation.
>
>
>
>
>     --
>
>
>     Jeremy Malcolm
>
>
>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>
>
>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
>
>     https://eff.org
>
>     jmalcolm at eff.org
>
>
>
>
>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
>
>
>
>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>
>     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
>
>
>
>
>
>   --
>
>
>   Dr. Anja Kovacs
>
>   The Internet Democracy Project
>
>
>   +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>
>   www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________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 esterhuysenexecutive
>
> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>
> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
*Renata Avila *
Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
+44 7477168593 (UK)

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/421c5363/attachment.htm>

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Sat Nov  1 14:06:50 2014
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 18:06:50 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)
In-Reply-To: <297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com>
References: <DA5BCF87-F566-4BDF-A68B-8E24E5E52CC6@difference.com.au>,<297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8E30@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu>

The following is a chapter of a draft report on Ensuring utmost transparency -- Free Software and Open Standards under the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#The_Constitutional_Principle_of_Openness_under_European_Law>.

The RFC is closing in a week or so, feedback very welcome!.

If you want to tweet: https://twitter.com/glynmoody/status/523060059098849280

//Erik

The Constitutional Principle of Openness under European Law
Parliament has Imposed upon Itself a Commitment to Conduct its Activities with the Utmost Transparency

Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament provides that

"1. Parliament shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union."

The European Parliament has been a champion in promoting not only openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents, but also that the EU Courts should accept that openness constitutes a general principle of EU law, and that the right to information is as such a fundamental human right. In Netherlands v Council, the European Parliament argued as follows:

In this connection, the Parliament avers that, whilst it is competent for the institutions to adopt appropriate measures for their internal organization with a view to ensuring their sound operation and the proper conduct of their procedures, the principle of openness of the legislative process and the access to legislative documents entailed thereby constitute essential requirements of democracy and therefore cannot be treated as organizational matters purely internal to the institutions. In this context, the Parliament adverts to the democratic nature of the Community legal order. It maintains moreover that the requirement for openness constitutes a general principle common to the constitutional traditions of the Member States which is also enshrined in Community law. Lastly, it argues that the right to information, of which access to documents constitutes the corollary, is a fundamental human right recognized by various international instruments.

In its judgment, the Court stressed that the domestic legislation of most Member States enshrines, in a general manner, the public’s right of access to documents held by public authorities as a constitutional or legislative principle. The Court found that this trend "discloses a progressive affirmation of individuals’ right of access to documents held by public authorities" and that accordingly, the Council deemed it necessary to amend the rules governing its internal organisation, which had hitherto been based on the principle of confidentiality. The Court added that, "so long as the Community legislature has not adopted general rules on the right of public access to documents held by the Community institutions, the institutions must take measures as to the processing of such requests by virtue of their power of internal organisation, which authorises them to take appropriate measures in order to ensure their internal operation in conformity with the interests of good administration".

While dated, this analysis is still interesting for at least three reasons. First, the legal doctrine is divided as to whether or not it is possible to interpret the Netherlands v Council judgment as authority for the existence of a fundamental right of access to documents.[6]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-6> Second, when interpreting Rule 115, the relevant legal question is whether or not internal rules of the institutions may confer a substantive legal right to access to documents, to information, and/or to data on EU citizens. Third, the Court clearly links the issue of public access to documents to the nascent principle of good administration.

According to the case law of the Court, the purpose of the Community institutions’ internal Rules of Procedure is to organise the internal functioning of its services in the interests of good administration. The essential purpose of such rules, particularly those with regard to the organisation of deliberations and the adoption of decisions, is to ensure the smooth conduct of the decision-making procedure. It follows that natural or legal persons may normally not rely on an alleged breach of such rules, as they are not intended to ensure protection for individuals.

Therefore, internal rules cannot be regarded as measures conferring on European citizens a substantive right of access to documents, to information, or to data held by the EU institutions. They are not intended to vest in European citizens a formal ”right to know” what is going on within the European institutions, which is a prerequisite in a participatory democracy, where decisions are taken "as closely as possible to the citizen”. In the absence of general rules on the right of public access to information or to data held by the EU institutions, European citizens’ ”right to know” and to participate ”as closely as possible” in the decision-making process must therefore be found elsewhere.

As a preliminary conclusion, Rule 115 does not in itself confer any rights on European citizens. Nevertheless, as compliance with internal Rules of Procedure may constitute an essential procedural requirement, and may in some circumstances have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, their breach can give rise to an action for annulment before the EU Courts. Indeed, procedural rules laid down in Rule 115 constitutes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and its infringement leads to the nullity of the measure thereby vitiated.

In the light of the Court's judgment in European Parliament v. Council, that rule is an expression of the democratic principles on which the European Union is founded. In particular, the Court has already stated that the Parliament’s involvement in the decision-making process is the reflection, at the EU level, of the fundamental democratic principle that the people should participate in the exercise of power through the intermediary of a representative assembly.[7]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-7> Not only has Parliament imposed upon itself that it shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, but its actions shall also conform with the Principle of Openness enshrined in the Treaties and in the Charter, and the Right of Access to Information in Art. 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

The Principle of Openness and the Right of Access to Information: A Basis for Imposing Free Software and Open Standards ?

The first real step towards allowing the public a right of access to documents held by the Community institutions dates back to 7 February 1992 when the Member States signed the Final Act to the Maastricht Treaty.[8]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-8>. In Declaration No. 17 to that Act, the Member States pointed to the close connection between the transparency of the decision-making process and the democratic nature of the Community institutions. Nowadays, the principle of openness in European Union law has solid roots, as the very text of the Rule 115 makes clear, in the fundamental Treaties of the European Union.

The Treaties

Article 1(2) and Article 10(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Union (TEU) states that in the European Union decisions are to be taken as "openly as possible" and as closely as possible to the citizen.

In this respect, Article 15(1) TFEU states that in order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are to conduct their work as openly as possible. According to the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing in or having its registered office in a Member State, is to have a right of access to documents of the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with that paragraph. Moreover, according to the second subparagraph of Article 15(3), the general principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents are to be determined by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. In accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU, each institution, body, office or agency is to ensure that its proceedings are transparent and is to elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents, in accordance with the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU.

It should be noted at the outset that the General Court has held that Article 1, para. 2 EU and Article 255 EC did not have direct effect, and could therefore not form the basis of a request for disclosure of a document of an institution. The first provision was not regarded as "clear"[9]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-9>, and the second was not considered to lay down an unconditional obligation, since its implementation was held to be dependent on the adoption of subsequent measures. [10]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-10>

In a different strand of its case-law, the General Court has referred to the "principle of the right to information" [11]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-11>, and to the "principle of transparency" [12]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-12>, in support of a finding that the previous internal rules of access to documents of the institutions must be interpreted in the light of the "principle of the right to information" and the principle of proportionality. The issue has obviously divided the General Court, which has also stated:

For the purpose of applying Article 4 of Regulation EC No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the concept of a document must be distinguished from that of information. The public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions covers only documents and not information in the wider meaning of the word and does not imply a duty on the part of the institutions to reply to any request for information from an individual.[13]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-13>

To date, no clear guidance on this issue has been provided by the Court. In Council v Hautala, the Court did not find it necessary to rule on "the existence of a principle of the right to information" in European Union law.[14]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-14>

Based on this lack of clarity in the case-law of the EU Courts, in Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB, the ECB contested the very existence in EU law of a fundamental legal principle which provides for a general right of access to its documents and to those of the EU institutions. It argued that although arguments based on such a principle have been raised on numerous occasions before the EU judicature, none of the EU Courts has considered it appropriate to examine them.

In its judgement, the General Court held that "even supposing that the right of access to the documents held by the Community public authorities, including the ECB, may be regarded as a fundamental right protected by the Community legal order as a general principle of law", the plea of illegality in respect of Article 23.3 of the ECB Rules of Procedure, based on the alleged infringement of such a principle, could not be upheld. The General Court pointed out that fundamental rights cannot be understood as ‘unfettered prerogatives’ and that it is ‘legitimate that these rights should, if necessary, be subject to certain limits justified by the overall objectives pursued by the Community, on condition that the substance of these rights is left untouched" [15]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-15>. The General Court held that, as regards the right of access to documents, reasons related to the protection of the public interest or a private interest may legitimately restrict that right.[16]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-16>

Be that as it may. As Advocate General Poiares Maduro has correctly pointed out, the fact remains that henceforth the existence of the right of access to documents of the institutions is no longer based on internal measures adopted by the institutions, with which they are bound to comply, or even on Regulation 1049/2001, but on a provision of constitutional import.[17]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-17> The Court has in this regard clarified that the "principle of openness" stated in a general manner in the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is "crystallised" by Regulation 1049/2001.[18]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-18> An alleged infringement of the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU is therefore in the Court's view not distinct from a plea alleging a wrongful application of the exceptions referred to in Regulation No 1049/2001.

The existence of a "principle of openness" is confirmed by Art. 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states

"In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible."
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Similiarly, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (‘Charter of Fundamental Rights’) also acknowledges this right:

‘Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium.’

Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 thereby establish a right of access to documents of the institutions. In the context of the European Parliament documents, it should be noted that Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament[19]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-19> provides that documents and electronic records which a Member has received, drafted or sent are not to be treated as Parliament documents unless they have been tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. As Advocate general Kokkot has noted, the documents relating to a legislative procedure which are in the possession of a rapporteur must in principle be regarded as being in the possession of the Parliament. It will at some point in time be necessary to decide whether Article 15 TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allow such documents to be excluded from the right of access in the future.[20]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-20>

Moreover, Art. 10 TEU regarding the principle of democracy (especially Article 10(3), echoes the second paragraph of Article 1) and Article 15 TFEU, dealing with good governance, openness, transparency and access to documents.

Article 10 in the European Convention of Human Rights

The development of the principle of openness in EU law has been accompanied by a parallell development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In Guerra and Others v. Italy, the Strasbourg Court held that freedom to receive information under Art. 10 of the ECHR merely prohibited a State from restricting a person from receiving information that others wished or might be willing to impart to him. It states that freedom could not be construed as imposing on a State, in the circumstances of that case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of its own motion [21]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-21> Similiarly, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért concerned a request for access to information by a non-governmental organisation for the purposes of contributing to public debate. Here, the Court noted that it had recently advanced towards a broader interpretation of the notion of the “freedom to receive information” and thereby towards the recognition of a right of access to information.[22]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-22>

In a recent judgment of 25 June 2013, for the case of Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia,[23]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-23>, the Court unanimously recalled, in its reasoning on admissibility, that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a "right of access to information". The judgment has, in our view correctly, been interpreted as having "established implicitly the right of access”, in that the notion of “freedom to receive information” embraces a right of access to information.[24]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-24>

In a concurring opinion, judges Sajó and Vučinić highlighted the general need to interpret Article 10 in conformity with developments in international law regarding freedom of information, which entails access to information held by public bodies referring, in particular, to Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 [25]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-25>.

The Human Rights Committee has in turn stressed both the proactive and the reactive dimensions of the freedom of expression and freedom of information. Article 19, paragraph 2 embraces a right of access to information held by public bodies. Such information includes records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which the information is stored, its source, and the date of production. As the Committee has observed in its General Comment No. 16, regarding Article 17 of the Covenant, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, whether, and if so, what personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes. Paragraph 3 of the General Comment provides as follows:

3.Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights.

Moreover, to give effect to the right of access to information, States Parties should proactively put in the public domain government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective, and practical access to such information. In regard to freedom of expression, the Committee has linked it with the developments in information and communication technologies:

15. States Parties should take account of the extent to which developments in information and communication technologies, such as internet and mobile based electronic information dissemination systems, have substantially changed communication practices around the world. There is now a global network for exchanging ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditional mass media intermediaries. States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and to ensure access of individuals thereto.

The principle of openness and the right of access to information are directed ‒ among other things ‒ at ensuring that decisions are taken as openly as possible and and closely as possible to the citizens, in other words, it is a basic democratic tenet, where citizens must see what happens within the institutions (which is one of the means through which accountability of the institutions and their agents is ensured) and the institutions have an obligation to at least listen to what citizens have to say (in other words, participation and representation of interests). [26]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-26>.

Legislative Openness

Ever since the Treaty of Amsterdam the concept of "the legislative" has had a place in the language of the EU Treaties. Under the second subparagraph of Article 207(3) EC the Council was already required to define "the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity" to allow the right of access to documents under Article 255(1) EC to be exercised.

In the realm of secondary legislation, Recital 6 in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 states that "[w]ider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity." The Treaty of Amsterdam enshrined both the right of access to documents of the institutions, on the one hand, and referred to the special consideration to be given to the ‘legislative capacity’ of the Council, on the other. It has been argued that , this indicated that the appropriate context for exercising the right of access was where the Council was acting in a "legislative capacity", thus acknowledging the close relationship that, in principle, exists between legislative procedures and the principles of openness and transparency [27]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-27>.

On a comparative note, and despite the differences that may exist between national legislation and EU "legislation", or between Member State legislatures and the EU "legislature", the "legislative procedure" by which the Council and the European Parliament are bound, is conceptually very close to the national "legislative procedure", speaking from the point of view of its underlying purpose and thus the principles on which it must be based. In the end, they have in common the need to satisfy the imperative requirements of democratic legitimacy.

As the Advocate General correctly pointed out in Case C‑280/11 P Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe [28]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-28>:

"’Legislating’ is, by definition, a law-making activity that in a democratic society can only occur through the use of a procedure that is public in nature and, in that sense, ‘transparent’. Otherwise, it would not be possible to ascribe to ‘law’ the virtue of being the expression of the will of those that must obey it, which is the very foundation of its legitimacy as an indisputable edict. In a representative democracy, it must be possible for citizens to find out about the legislative procedure, since if this were not so, citizens would be unable to hold their representatives politically accountable, as they must be by virtue of their electoral mandate. In the context of this public procedure, transparency therefore plays a key role that is somewhat different from its role in administrative procedures. While, in administrative procedures, transparency serves the very specific purpose of ensuring that the authorities are subject to the rule of law, in the legislative procedure it serves the purpose of legitimising the law itself and with it the legal order as a whole."

In its judgment in Sweden and Turco v Council,[29]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-29> the Court held that it is for the Council to balance the particular interest to be protected by non-disclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible in the light of the advantages stemming from increased openness. It states that when the Council is acting in its legislative capacity, it is particularly relevant that openness be considered, given that it enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process, guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy, and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system.

The following Recitals in the Preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 are relevant in this respect:

"‘(1) The second subparagraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union enshrines the concept of openness, stating that the Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

(2) Openness enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(6) Wider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity, including under delegated powers, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of the institutions’ decision-making process. Such documents should be made directly accessible to the greatest possible extent."

The Court has confirmed that the considerations of legislative openness are clearly of particular relevance where the Council is acting in its legislative capacity: "Openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by enabling citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis for a legislative act. The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights".[30]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-30>

The theoretical underpinnings of the Principle of Openness and of legislative openness has thus acquired a solid foundation in the Treaties and in the case-law of the court. However, due to the eternal tide wave and purported conflict between Openness and Efficiency, Parliament has in practice struggled to live up to the Principle of Openness by resorting to informal decision-making procedures. As Nikoleta Yordanova has correctly noted: [31]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-31>

Traditionally, the parliamentary committees have offered important venues for political involvement of extra-parliamentary actors due to the openness and transparency of their meetings. In the past fifteen years, however, the EP has been resorting ever more often to informal decision-making, whereby the parliamentary decisions are not reached internally following deliberations and debate in committee and plenary but in secluded trilogue meetings of limited number of representatives of the three EU legislative institutions – the EP, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission.

(...)

The implications of the switch to an informal mode of legislating for representation in the EP are twofold – decreased input and, potentially also, output legitimacy. Specifically, the decrease in committee influence has curtailed the channels of representation of interest groups to affect decision-making, depriving them of an effective tool to monitor and shape the legislative process and outcomes by raising timely demands. A possible implication of this is diminished receptiveness of legislators to constituents’ interests. Moreover, the lack of transparency of the secluded inter-institutional meetings has limited the ability of constituents to monitor their representatives’ policy bargaining, positions and the concessions, and, consequently, to evaluate how responsive legislators are to their preferences and demands.
The Need for Lawmakers to Deliberate in Private

The European Union, the Member States and 19 other States are parties to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Convention’), which entered into force on 30 October 2001. The Convention is based on three ‘pillars’ – access to information, public participation, and access to justice. Its preamble includes the following recitals:

‘Recognising that, in the field of the environment, improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns,

Aiming thereby to further the accountability of and transparency in decision-making and to strengthen public support for decisions on the environment,

Recognising the desirability of transparency in all branches of government and inviting legislative bodies to implement the principles of this Convention in their proceedings’.

The second sentence of Article 2(2) allows Member States to exclude from the scope of the Directive bodies otherwise falling within the definition of ‘public authority’, ‘when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity’.

The Convention was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370, (3) the annex to which contains a declaration by the European Community (‘the Declaration’) which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

‘In relation to Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention the European Community invites Parties to the Convention to take note of Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive]. These provisions give Member States of the European Community the possibility, in exceptional cases and under strictly specified conditions, to exclude certain institutions and bodies from the rules on review procedures in relation to decisions on requests for information. Therefore the ratification by the European Community of the Aarhus Convention encompasses any reservation by a Member State of the European Community to the extent that such a reservation is compatible with Article 2(2) and Article 6 of [the Directive].’

In ratifying the Convention on 20 May 2005, Sweden lodged a reservation which, in so far as is relevant, reads as follows:

‘Sweden lodges a reservation in relation to Article 9.1 with regard to access to a review procedure before a court of law of decisions taken by the Parliament, the Government and Ministers on issues involving the release of official documents.’

In accordance with Directive 2003/4,[32]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-32> public authorities must in principle be required to make environmental information held by or for them available to any applicant at his request. However, the Directive permits Member States to exclude public bodies acting in a legislative capacity from the definition of a ‘public authority’. In addition, access may be refused to certain types of document, or if disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of proceedings of authorities where such confidentiality is provided for by law.

In her opinion in Flachglas Torgau, AG Sharpstone summarized the dilemma as follows:[33]<http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#cite_note-33>

The performance of both judicial and legislative functions could be impaired if information of all kinds concerning each and every stage of the process – analysing the relevant issues and data, deriving conclusions from that analysis and formulating a final decision – could be demanded of right at all times by any member of the public. It seems reasonable to assume that considerations of that kind were in the minds of those who initially drafted the first of the instruments concerned and have remained, albeit implicitly, in the minds of those who have participated in the drafting of the subsequent instruments. Yet it is by no means desirable, nor would it appear consistent with the overall thrust of the Convention or the Directive, for legislative or judicial activity to take place in impenetrable secrecy. It is generally considered necessary, in order to ensure the rule of law and democratic government, for both courts of law and legislative assemblies to operate in the presence of the public (or at least of the media as an intermediary) other than in wholly exceptional circumstances – and it is, moreover, generally accepted that such circumstances are more common in the course of judicial than of legislative activity. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, therefore, in neither case should decisions be taken on the basis of facts, or for reasons, which are concealed from citizens.



________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday 1 November 2014 18:42
To: 'David Cake'; 'Best Bits'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)

Coming in late and agreeing with my JNC colleagues I’ll add only a few points

1.       “Openness”—I’ve discussed “openness” and its enemies in a rather lengthy series of blogposts and publications which I’m delighted to see being paralleled in a range of academic discussions on these issues

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/are-the-open-data-warriors-fighting-for-robin-hood-or-the-sheriff-some-reflections-on-okcon-2011-and-the-emerging-data-divide/

The ideal that these nerdy revolutionaries are pursuing is not, as with previous generations—justice, freedom, democracy—rather it is “openness” as in Open Data, Open Information, Open Government. Precisely what is meant by “openness” is never (at least certainly not in the context of this conference) really defined in a form that an outsider could grapple with (and perhaps critique).  Rather it was a pervasive and animating good intention—a grail to be pursued by warriors off on a joust with various governmental dragons. Their armaments in this instance (and to an outsider many of them are magical indeed) are technical skills and zeal sufficient to slay any bureaucrat or resistant politician’s rationalizations and resistances to being “open”—i.e. not turning their information treasure chests into universally accessible nodes in a seamless global datascape.

If I seem a bit skeptical/cynical – less than true believing – its not because I don’t believe in this goal of “openness” (who could be churlish enough to support things that are closed—closed systems, closed doors, closed minds—you get the picture), its just that I see a huge disconnect between the idealism and the passionate belief in the rightness of their cause and the profound failure to have any clear idea of what precisely that cause is and where it is likely to take them (and us) in the very near future.



http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%E2%80%9Copen-development%E2%80%9D-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/



It is hard (from this paper) to see how a commitment to “open development” or “open ICT4D” is much more than a commitment to further enabling the (already) enabled and empowering the (already) empowered.


White Noise: On the Limits of Openness (Living Book Mix): Gary Hall
http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/books/Open_science/Introduction


2.       Transparency

Thanks for your elaboration on the notion of “transparency and MSism”, it is quite useful both for what it includes but rather more interestingly for what is not included.



As I’m sure you know the notion of “transparency” is generally yoked with the notion of “accountability”.  This isn’t simply for catch phrase purposes.  “Transparency and accountability” are linked together because one is necessary for and supportive of the other.



To have accountability you need to have transparency and the primary function of transparency is to lead to or enable accountability.



The fact that you almost completely omit any reference to accountability in your exposition and give no clear indication of how “transparency” as you present it is actually linked to any structures of “accountability” is fatally indicative of a fundamental flaw in the approach to MSism you are presenting.  It is great if MS process are fully transparent.  But so what, for whom or why does it matter if I or anyone knows how decisions are made if they are being made by unaccountable (MS) elites/actors or through unaccountable non-democratic (anti-democratic) processes.



Democracy, at least according to any document I’ve ever seen, is fundamentally about “accountability”—accountability of decision makers to those on whose behalf decisions are being, accountability to the broad public interest (rather than individual private interests—ever hear about conflict of interest laws), accountability to laws determining formal processes of decision making within democratic frameworks. “Transparency” is one of the necessary tools for achieving this “accountability”… a tool towards accountability not an end in itself, which in practice would be and is a pointless and wasteful exercise of attempting to hide in plain sight.



Transparency without accountability in a system of governance may quite correctly describe your experience of MSism in ICANN (from many reports this is quite accurate) and unfortunately may apply to many current formally democratic systems of governance but is this a “principle” on which you want to build your MSist governance sandcastle.



3.       Consensus

My JNC colleagues have I think quite correctly pointed to the absurdity of “consensus” as a governance principle.  As they have pointed out such consensus is impossible in the real (policy) world and particularly where allocative decisions need to be made (where there are winners and losers).  Rather than suggest what is in effect a procedural/technical aspect of decision making (there are an almost infinite number of ways of arriving at decisions including of course “consensus”) I would have thought it perhaps more appropriate to agree on the principle that the outcome of the decision making processes should be decisions which optimize the public good.  Unfortunately your “consensus principle” is a clear attempt to hard wire into Internet (and other?) decision making a process whose outcome inevitably and necessarily must be the optimization of private (stakeholder) interests.



M

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 3:22 AM
To: Best Bits
Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long)

            So, Michael Gurstein challenges MSism proponents to describe its principles (Michael and JNC having generally taken the opposite tack, having principles aplenty but a lot of vagueness on practical/operational detail as to how those principles might be made into a practical transnational organisation).

            And I think it is worth doing to make a few points that I think clarify the debate. Sorry though, it is a long one.

            So, I will have a first pass at starting a discussion on the principles of MSism as we know it. These are just my thoughts, and I'm a relative latecomer to MS processes (having only been involved since 2009), and my experience is largely restricted to ICANN, so it is very likely that many of my assumptions are wrong

            The first is, that I think multi-stakeholder is a poor name for what we generally refer to as MS in the Internet governance context. Because having multiple stakeholders is an important characteristic, but certainly not the only, or perhaps primary, one. Multi-stakeholder of course serves well to highlight the difference between MS governance and multi-lateral forms (which really have only states as full participants, other stakeholders playing secondary roles), but calling ICANN, RIRs, etc multi-stakeholder obscures other significant factors, and so allows the confusion (notable in much JNC rhetoric) between open MS forms such as ICANN and closed forms such as WEF.

            So, one principle of MS governance that I think most CS participants in MS would agree on is openness to participation. ICANN, IGF, etc are open to effectively anyone who wishes to participate.

            I would argue that this principle of openness is more important than multi-stakeholderism per se - MS governance fora with formal stakeholders (like ICANN) would be regarded by many as the descendants of fora like the IETF that have no formal multi-stakeholder commitments, but that simply allow participation by anyone, regardless of their stakeholder affiliation. And this distinguishes such fora sharply from fora like the WEF, which are not open, and are rather strongly gatekeepered. I, for one, feel that the MSism I support has far more in common with the IETF etc than with WEF, because the broad openness of the process is an important principle, essential for its legitimacy and proper functioning. And of course it is not just private sector fora like WEF that have strict gatekeeping on participation, it is also multi-lateral fora such as the ITU. Whether the gatekeeper is government or private sector, both restrict the ability of CS and the broader populace to participate in their processes.

            I note that while the JNC certainly wants to broaden participation, openness does not appear to be a principle - in fact, a large proportion of JNC rhetoric is specifically critical of the inclusion of commercial operators, so JNC would appear to be opposed to openness as a principle per se.

            There are, of course, barriers to entry such as time to master the sometimes dense jargon, language barriers to non-English speakers, and travel to physical meetings, but one principle I would hope that MS proponents and JNC members can agree on is that while these practical barriers are non-trivial to overcome, it should be a goal of all such organisations to mitigate these effects. ICANN, for example, does simultaneous translation of many sessions, offers remote participation for almost all sessions, etc.

            Transparency is another important principle. Those of us used to operating in environments such as ICANN, IETF, etc are used to a quite high degree of transparency in its day to day operation, and I certainly think this is a principle most of us would agree on. This broadens access to decision making by those who are not able to fully directly participate, and serves as a vital part of the accountability mechanisms - as a participant, any word I say is something I might be called on to justify, and the positions I advocate are very open to those I claim to represent (in my case, the members of the organisation I chair and represent). The vast majority of ICANN related meetings I participate in are recorded, transcribed, and made publicly available - some also translated into multiple languages. This level of transparency should be the norm.
            And, of course, this is one of the contrasting distinctions with multli-lateral fora like the ITU, or multi-nation trade negotiations. The ITU is at least gradually changing from its culture of secrecy and restriction to a more open one, but this is a very recent and as yet fairly tentative change. And trade negotiations like TTTA and TTIP are becoming increasingly, obsessively, secretive and restricted, even between democratic nations - indeed, this secrecy is such that it clearly undermines democracy, for example in many nations elected legislators are not given access to treaty negotiation text.
            Now, I am sure that JNC members are opposed to the excesses of non-transparency such as the TPPA, but it isn't clear to what extent this is a high priority for the JNC, considering some members past support for the ITU in its more closed era, etc.

            It is, of course, worth noting that at times considerations such as individual privacy and security must occasionally demand processes that are less transparent (such as maintaining the privacy of individuals involved in selection processes etc), but the principle is that privacy should be a default.

            It is also worth noting that these two principles, openness and transparency, are closely tied. Admitting stakeholders with a strong interest in the outcome of proceedings (such as commercial operators) is acceptable (to me, anyway) if they must act in a transparent, on the record, manner, advocating the value of their ideas openly, rather than privately lobbying for them. History has shown very strongly that a process that is both closed and secret is very amenable to indirect involvement of commercial operators via lobbying. and that even when it is not so secret, but closed to permit only government participation, this still happens. And of course democratic nations are, if anything, often even more susceptible to private lobbying than non-democratic ones. It is also the case that if effectively anyone is able to participate in decision making, then opposing transparency is somewhat of a losing proposition anyway (anyone who wants to know can participate), but it is still important to commit to it as a positive value.

            And, of course, there is the principe of a commitment to consensus decision making. This is an essential principle of MSism to me. A commitment to consensus is a strong mechanism to encourage broad consideration of a wide range of viewpoints and criticisms. Policy that emerges from MS processes is certainly not perfect, but *absolutely terrible* policy seldom makes it through the process, which does not seem to be the case for IG related policy (or most policy, really) that makes it through elected legislatures.
It is also worth noting that there are a great many subtleties in the exact definition of consensus used (ICANN identifies at least 5 within its processes, and there are several more  being used in the IG space), and some may be more practical or desirable than others.

            And the JNC seems relatively hostile to consensus, noting that commercial entities have significant ability to hold back policy that they dislike, etc. and advocating strongly for majority voting mechanisms. The JNC would seem to strongly advocate majoritarianism over consensus - and while JNC rhetoric does support the rights of minorities, it is unclear what, if any, mechanisms would be used to prevent popular policies that attract but a majority vote but are unfavourable to minorities, or if this is considered desirable.

            It is also notable that the use of a voting mechanism requires identifying who gets to vote, and working out a voting mechanisms, and this is a non-trivial problem - and may perhaps be the origins of the disdain for voting in the IG space. The IETF does not vote in large part because there is no membership of the IETF, or limits to who is involved in its processes, so there is no obvious way to determine who is eligible to vote. The JNC is strong on advocacy of voting as a principle, but I have yet to see an explanation of how the considerable difficulties of determining franchise would be dealt with. I am certainly among those who feel that the UN/ITU '1 state 1 vote' system, extending as it does equal votes to states of widely varying size, and often wildly undemocratic themselves, does not really bear any significant connection to the principle of democracy. It would certainly be helpful if the JNC would make it clear whether they feel this sort of multi-lateral voting mechanisms satisfies their commitment to democracy as a principle or not.

            So, there we are, three suggested principles for CS support of MS processes.
The TL:DR summary -
Openness. Anyone who wishes to participate should be able to, without gatekeeping and minimising barriers to participation.
Transparency. Meetings and decision making processes should be public and open to all who wish to participate by default. And
Commitment to consensus. Not all issues may be resolvable by consensus, other mechanisms may be required where irreconcilable differences occur. But consensus processes should be pursued where possible, and are to be preferred to majority voting procedures.

And my impression is that the JNC position:
- does not favour full openness, wishing to broaden participation but prevent commercial entities from full participation.
- favours transparency, but does not have as strong a commitment to this principle as MSism advocates.
- favours majority voting (either direct or representative democracy) over consensus based processes.
I am not trying to 'straw man' the JNC here - I'd love to be told that, for example, those JNC members who previously were OK with ITU restrictions on document sharing are now willing to commit to a position of strong advocacy for ITU transparency, or if some JNC members favour voting only in cases where consensus decision making has clearly failed, etc. But I think it is worth trying to highlight why those, like myself, who favour MSism are not simply 'hostile to democracy', as Michael would like to paint us, but are rather committed to a set of positive principles that is quite different to a simple embrace of any process with multiple stakeholders, and disagreement with JNC positions is based on a commitment to those broader principles.

I'd also like to make it clear that, of course, advocacy of MS fora in principle does not mean that we do not have strong criticisms of them in actuality. I think ICANN, for example, has good rules on transparency - but its lack of good accountability structures means that it can fail on transparency at crucial points. And I believe that, while ICANN does try hard to be inclusive of those who cannot attend physical meetings, it could do a lot more and must constantly review its processes to see if they can be improved. Working out where there is general consensus on principles for improvement of existing fora would be useful.

Regards

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/14e123e0/attachment.htm>

From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Thu Nov 20 10:07:31 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:07:31 -1000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
 <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
 <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>
 <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwqXzowRbmF3GsKHCfcQAGycvskFhbj8zEMbR7=W9Uh=Zg@mail.gmail.com>

I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the
deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top
among them being:-
1. Have a bottom up  approach
2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent
seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share
the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are
being dangled at CS.
3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is
build upon with input from all.

Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would
not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI
stating our objections and expectations.

Sincerely,
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh
B: http://lord.me.ke/
T: twitter.com/lordmwesh

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk
on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson


On 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at the
> closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any
> effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs.
> Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, somehow,
> regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against all
> citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language
> against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to
> please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts of the
> copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just the
> result of an event outside the regular events around Internet Governance is
> simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two of
> the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies, of our
> free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome
> document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights
> standards.
>
> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work by
> CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the attached
> maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries
> from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It was
> a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but, paradoxically,
> with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but, except
> for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and
> Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at
> least no unity in key demands.
>
> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is flawed
> and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil Society.
> Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher but
> lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and concerns
> for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of such
> principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of
> those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and resources
> that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few.
>
> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has been
> discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are giving
> to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
>
> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or position
> of the Web Foundation.
>
> Renata
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
>> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed information
>> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions?
>> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about
>> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of corporations,
>> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs,
>> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to
>> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a
>> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in Davos,
>> to start with.
>>
>> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
>> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is this
>> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already
>> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to bother
>> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy candidate.
>> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no copyright
>> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for
>> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a
>> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a
>> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
>>
>> Thanks
>> JC
>>
>>
>> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled
>> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with
>> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is
>> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who
>> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have
>> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in
>> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those who
>> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
>> Jeanette
>>
>> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Nnenna.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>>
>> opinion.
>>
>>
>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>>
>> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>>
>> reciprocated.
>>
>>
>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>>
>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>>
>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would
>>
>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>>
>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>>
>>
>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
>>
>> respect differences of opinion.
>>
>>
>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>>
>> APC as  " an international network and non profit organisation that
>>
>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>>
>> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the
>>
>> pursuit of social justice.
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>>
>> To: michael gurstein
>>
>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
>>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>
>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>
>>
>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
>>
>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
>>
>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
>>
>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>>
>>
>>
>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
>>
>> Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>>
>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
>>
>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>>
>>
>>
>> I will rest my case for now
>>
>>
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
>>
>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>>
>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
>>
>> social justice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
>>
>> Esterhuysen
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>>
>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>>
>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>
>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>>
>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>>
>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>>
>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
>>
>> IG, so apologies for not participating.
>>
>>
>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>>
>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
>>
>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
>>
>> process a try.
>>
>>
>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>>
>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
>>
>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>>
>> legitimate and clear.
>>
>>
>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
>>
>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
>>
>> and white'.
>>
>>
>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>>
>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
>>
>> August have actually been addressed.
>>
>>
>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>>
>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
>>
>> its mechanisms.
>>
>>
>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>>
>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
>>
>> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to
>>
>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
>>
>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>>
>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>>
>> processes and mechanisms.
>>
>>
>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>>
>>
>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>>
>> following:
>>
>>
>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>>
>> - a limited timeframe
>>
>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
>>
>> continue or not
>>
>>
>>
>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>>
>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>>
>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>>
>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
>>
>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>>
>>
>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
>>
>> out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
>>
>> we can always withdraw.
>>
>>
>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>>
>> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights
>>
>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
>>
>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the
>>
>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
>>
>> implement, internet governance.
>>
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>
>>   Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
>>
>> some light on why their government has decided to support this
>>
>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I
>>
>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
>>
>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
>>
>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>>
>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>>
>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>>
>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
>>
>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>>
>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
>>
>> themselves some fixed seats.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>>
>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>>
>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others
>>
>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at
>>
>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would
>>
>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like
>>
>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
>>
>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the
>>
>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that
>>
>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
>>
>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
>>
>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
>>
>> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
>>
>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
>>
>> not so certain)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>>
>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>>
>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>>
>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>>
>> forward.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   Thanks and best,
>>
>>
>>   Anja
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>>
>> Society members here.
>>
>>
>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>>
>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>>
>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>>
>>
>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>>
>> dont think we should miss out.
>>
>>
>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
>>
>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>>
>> interested in the NMI.
>>
>>
>> I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>>
>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>
>>
>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>>
>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>>
>> participate.
>>
>>
>>   All for now
>>
>>
>>   Nnenna
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Jeremy,
>>
>>
>>     Thanks for your email.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
>>
>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>>
>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>>
>> politics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>>
>> and impact.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>
>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>
>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>>
>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>>
>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends
>>
>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
>>
>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>>
>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
>>
>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
>>
>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>>
>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
>>
>> such as
>>
>>
>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>
>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>
>>
>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>>
>> and growing?
>>
>>
>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>
>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>>
>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>>
>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>>
>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>
>>
>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>>
>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>>
>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
>>
>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
>>
>> CS.
>>
>>
>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>>
>> than IANA for example?
>>
>>
>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>
>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying
>>
>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
>>
>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
>>
>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their
>>
>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
>>
>> also create more "values".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless,
>>
>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
>>
>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>>
>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>>
>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>>
>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it
>>
>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
>>
>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>>
>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>>
>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>>
>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We
>>
>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
>>
>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>>
>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we
>>
>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow
>>
>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
>>
>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
>>
>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done,
>>
>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
>>
>> comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>>
>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
>>
>> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having
>>
>> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
>>
>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
>>
>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
>>
>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
>>
>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the
>>
>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
>>
>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only
>>
>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
>>
>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some
>>
>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias
>>
>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>>
>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>>
>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales
>>
>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>
>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that
>>
>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
>>
>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
>>
>> debate. That would be fair.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     JC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
>>
>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
>>
>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about
>>
>> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for this
>>
>> list.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>>
>> to non JNC members:
>>
>>
>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>>
>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew
>>
>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>>
>> Initiative)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>>
>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>>
>> Chehadé: ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative
>>
>> as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global [Internet]
>>
>> governance".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>>
>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>>
>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt)
>>
>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>>
>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
>>
>> different participants.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>>
>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>>
>> meeting. On this much we agree.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>>
>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
>>
>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
>>
>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>>
>> certainly have
>>
>>
>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>>
>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>>
>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>>
>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>>
>> endorsement of the Initiative.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
>>
>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>>
>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>>
>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>>
>> flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because
>>
>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not.
>>
>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than
>>
>> me monopolising the conversation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>
>>
>>     Jeremy Malcolm
>>
>>
>>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>
>>
>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>
>>
>>     https://eff.org
>>
>>     jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>
>>     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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   --
>>
>>
>>   Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>
>>   The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>>
>>   +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>
>>   www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________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 esterhuysenexecutive
>>
>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>>
>> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Renata Avila
> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want
> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
> +44 7477168593 (UK)
>
> World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington D.C.
> 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

From antiropy at gmail.com  Thu Nov 20 10:27:00 2014
From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:27:00 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CAEhPqwqXzowRbmF3GsKHCfcQAGycvskFhbj8zEMbR7=W9Uh=Zg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
	<CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
	<0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>
	<4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
	<CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<546D9597.1080702@apc.org>
	<238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
	<CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
	<AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba>
	<E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>
	<202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net>
	<CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEhPqwqXzowRbmF3GsKHCfcQAGycvskFhbj8zEMbR7=W9Uh=Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOGFQRxM+wH=8ikZQnm9B6eOSqX0zLpGPtZodH7bzQ2O7dV-pA@mail.gmail.com>

I agree!

Byoungil Oh


2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>:

> I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the
> deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top
> among them being:-
> 1. Have a bottom up  approach
> 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent
> seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share
> the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are
> being dangled at CS.
> 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is
> build upon with input from all.
>
> Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would
> not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI
> stating our objections and expectations.
>
> Sincerely,
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh
> B: http://lord.me.ke/
> T: twitter.com/lordmwesh
>
> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk
> on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>
>
> On 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at the
> > closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any
> > effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs.
> > Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, somehow,
> > regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against
> all
> > citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language
> > against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to
> > please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts of
> the
> > copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just
> the
> > result of an event outside the regular events around Internet Governance
> is
> > simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two of
> > the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies, of
> our
> > free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the
> outcome
> > document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human
> rights
> > standards.
> >
> > The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work
> by
> > CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the
> attached
> > maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries
> > from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It
> was
> > a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but,
> paradoxically,
> > with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but,
> except
> > for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum
> and
> > Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at
> > least no unity in key demands.
> >
> > So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
> > will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is
> flawed
> > and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil
> Society.
> > Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher
> but
> > lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and concerns
> > for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of
> such
> > principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of
> > those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and
> resources
> > that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among
> few.
> >
> > There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has
> been
> > discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are
> giving
> > to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
> >
> > * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
> position
> > of the Web Foundation.
> >
> > Renata
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> > Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jeanette,
> >>
> >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
> >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed
> information
> >> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions?
> >> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about
> >> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of
> corporations,
> >> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller
> entrepreneurs,
> >> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the
> criteria to
> >> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has
> a
> >> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in
> Davos,
> >> to start with.
> >>
> >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
> >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is
> this
> >> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already
> >> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to
> bother
> >> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy
> candidate.
> >> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no
> copyright
> >> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for
> >> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN
> and a
> >> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those
> without a
> >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> JC
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> >>
> >> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled
> >> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with
> >> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic
> question is
> >> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates
> who
> >> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we
> have
> >> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in
> >> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that
> those who
> >> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
> >> Jeanette
> >>
> >> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Nnenna.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
> >>
> >> opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
> >>
> >> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
> >>
> >> reciprocated.
> >>
> >>
> >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
> >>
> >> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
> >>
> >> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would
> >>
> >> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
> >>
> >> some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
> >>
> >>
> >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
> >>
> >> respect differences of opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
> >>
> >> APC as  " an international network and non profit organisation that
> >>
> >> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
> >>
> >> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the
> >>
> >> pursuit of social justice.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ian Peter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma
> >>
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
> >>
> >> To: michael gurstein
> >>
> >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
> >>
> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
> >>
> >>
> >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
> >>
> >> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
> >>
> >> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
> >>
> >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
> >>
> >> Mandela.  And it is him who said:
> >>
> >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
> >>
> >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I will rest my case for now
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nnenna
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
> >>
> >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
> >>
> >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
> >>
> >> social justice.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> M
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> >>
> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
> >>
> >> Esterhuysen
> >>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
> >>
> >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
> >>
> >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
> >>
> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >>
> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
> >>
> >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
> >>
> >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
> >>
> >> IG, so apologies for not participating.
> >>
> >>
> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
> >>
> >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
> >>
> >> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
> >>
> >> process a try.
> >>
> >>
> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
> >>
> >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
> >>
> >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
> >>
> >> legitimate and clear.
> >>
> >>
> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
> >>
> >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
> >>
> >> and white'.
> >>
> >>
> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
> >>
> >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
> >>
> >> August have actually been addressed.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
> >>
> >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
> >>
> >> its mechanisms.
> >>
> >>
> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
> >>
> >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
> >>
> >> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to
> >>
> >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
> >>
> >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
> >>
> >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
> >>
> >> processes and mechanisms.
> >>
> >>
> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
> >>
> >>
> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
> >>
> >> following:
> >>
> >>
> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
> >>
> >> - a limited timeframe
> >>
> >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
> >>
> >> continue or not
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
> >>
> >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
> >>
> >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
> >>
> >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
> >>
> >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
> >>
> >> out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
> >>
> >> we can always withdraw.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
> >>
> >> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights
> >>
> >> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
> >>
> >> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the
> >>
> >> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
> >>
> >> implement, internet governance.
> >>
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>   Dear all,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
> >>
> >> some light on why their government has decided to support this
> >>
> >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I
> >>
> >> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
> >>
> >> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
> >>
> >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
> >>
> >> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
> >>
> >> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
> >>
> >> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
> >>
> >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
> >>
> >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
> >>
> >> themselves some fixed seats.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
> >>
> >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
> >>
> >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others
> >>
> >> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at
> >>
> >> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would
> >>
> >> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like
> >>
> >> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
> >>
> >> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the
> >>
> >> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that
> >>
> >> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
> >>
> >> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
> >>
> >> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
> >>
> >> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
> >>
> >> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
> >>
> >> not so certain)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
> >>
> >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
> >>
> >> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
> >>
> >> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
> >>
> >> forward.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>   Thanks and best,
> >>
> >>
> >>   Anja
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
> >>
> >> Society members here.
> >>
> >>
> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
> >>
> >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
> >>
> >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
> >>
> >> dont think we should miss out.
> >>
> >>
> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
> >>
> >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
> >>
> >> interested in the NMI.
> >>
> >>
> >> I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
> >>
> >> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
> >>
> >>
> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
> >>
> >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
> >>
> >> participate.
> >>
> >>
> >>   All for now
> >>
> >>
> >>   Nnenna
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> >>
> >> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>     Jeremy,
> >>
> >>
> >>     Thanks for your email.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
> >>
> >> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
> >>
> >> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
> >>
> >> politics.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
> >>
> >> and impact.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
> >>
> >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
> >>
> >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
> >>
> >> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
> >>
> >> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends
> >>
> >> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
> >>
> >> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
> >>
> >> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
> >>
> >> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
> >>
> >> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
> >>
> >> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
> >>
> >> such as
> >>
> >>
> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
> >>
> >> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
> >>
> >>
> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
> >>
> >> and growing?
> >>
> >>
> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
> >>
> >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
> >>
> >> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
> >>
> >> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
> >>
> >> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
> >>
> >>
> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
> >>
> >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
> >>
> >> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
> >>
> >> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
> >>
> >> CS.
> >>
> >>
> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
> >>
> >> than IANA for example?
> >>
> >>
> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
> >>
> >> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying
> >>
> >> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
> >>
> >> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
> >>
> >> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their
> >>
> >> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
> >>
> >> also create more "values".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless,
> >>
> >> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
> >>
> >> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
> >>
> >> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
> >>
> >> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
> >>
> >> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it
> >>
> >> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
> >>
> >> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
> >>
> >> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
> >>
> >> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
> >>
> >> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We
> >>
> >> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
> >>
> >> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
> >>
> >> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we
> >>
> >> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow
> >>
> >> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
> >>
> >> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
> >>
> >> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done,
> >>
> >> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
> >>
> >> comfortable sofas of the WEF.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
> >>
> >> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
> >>
> >> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having
> >>
> >> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
> >>
> >> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
> >>
> >> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
> >>
> >> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
> >>
> >> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the
> >>
> >> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
> >>
> >> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only
> >>
> >> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
> >>
> >> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some
> >>
> >> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias
> >>
> >> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
> >>
> >> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
> >>
> >> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales
> >>
> >> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
> >>
> >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that
> >>
> >> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
> >>
> >> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
> >>
> >> debate. That would be fair.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     JC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> >>
> >> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
> >>
> >> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
> >>
> >> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about
> >>
> >> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for this
> >>
> >> list.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
> >>
> >> to non JNC members:
> >>
> >>
> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
> >>
> >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew
> >>
> >> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
> >>
> >> Initiative)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
> >>
> >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
> >>
> >> Chehadé: ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative
> >>
> >> as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global [Internet]
> >>
> >> governance".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
> >>
> >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
> >>
> >> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt)
> >>
> >> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
> >>
> >> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
> >>
> >> different participants.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
> >>
> >> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
> >>
> >> meeting. On this much we agree.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
> >>
> >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
> >>
> >> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
> >>
> >> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
> >>
> >> certainly have
> >>
> >>
> >> (
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles
> ).
> >>
> >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
> >>
> >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
> >>
> >> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
> >>
> >> endorsement of the Initiative.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
> >>
> >> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
> >>
> >> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
> >>
> >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
> >>
> >> flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because
> >>
> >> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not.
> >>
> >> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than
> >>
> >> me monopolising the conversation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     --
> >>
> >>
> >>     Jeremy Malcolm
> >>
> >>
> >>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
> >>
> >>
> >>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
> >>
> >>
> >>     https://eff.org
> >>
> >>     jmalcolm at eff.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     ____________________________________________________________
> >>
> >>     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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>   --
> >>
> >>
> >>   Dr. Anja Kovacs
> >>
> >>   The Internet Democracy Project
> >>
> >>
> >>   +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> >>
> >>   www.internetdemocracy.in
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________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 esterhuysenexecutive
> >>
> >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
> >>
> >> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Renata Avila
> > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want
> > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
> > +44 7477168593 (UK)
> >
> > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> D.C.
> > 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>



-- 
<http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141121/30242531/attachment.htm>

From gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Nov 20 10:59:06 2014
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:59:06 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CAOGFQRxM+wH=8ikZQnm9B6eOSqX0zLpGPtZodH7bzQ2O7dV-pA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
 <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
 <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>
 <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwqXzowRbmF3GsKHCfcQAGycvskFhbj8zEMbR7=W9Uh=Zg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOGFQRxM+wH=8ikZQnm9B6eOSqX0zLpGPtZodH7bzQ2O7dV-pA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALCecM__H4WZwRLQds3DeKxjxoXtqPoxH_8or9+=OBMShYev3A@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Mwenda, I like this approach. I think it will be helpful.
Ginger

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IG Programmes, DiploFoundation

*Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy
with Internet Governance option   http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=68a4fc5e88&e=bc0aff4eba>
* <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>** <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>*


On 20 November 2014 09:27, Byoung-il Oh <antiropy at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree!
>
> Byoungil Oh
>
>
> 2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>:
>
>> I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the
>> deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top
>> among them being:-
>> 1. Have a bottom up  approach
>> 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent
>> seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share
>> the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are
>> being dangled at CS.
>> 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is
>> build upon with input from all.
>>
>> Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would
>> not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI
>> stating our objections and expectations.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> ______________________
>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>> L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh
>> B: http://lord.me.ke/
>> T: twitter.com/lordmwesh
>>
>> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk
>> on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>>
>>
>> On 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at
>> the
>> > closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any
>> > effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs.
>> > Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least,
>> somehow,
>> > regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against
>> all
>> > citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language
>> > against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to
>> > please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts
>> of the
>> > copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just
>> the
>> > result of an event outside the regular events around Internet
>> Governance is
>> > simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two
>> of
>> > the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies,
>> of our
>> > free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the
>> outcome
>> > document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human
>> rights
>> > standards.
>> >
>> > The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work
>> by
>> > CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the
>> attached
>> > maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries
>> > from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It
>> was
>> > a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but,
>> paradoxically,
>> > with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but,
>> except
>> > for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum
>> and
>> > Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at
>> > least no unity in key demands.
>> >
>> > So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
>> > will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is
>> flawed
>> > and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil
>> Society.
>> > Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher
>> but
>> > lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and
>> concerns
>> > for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of
>> such
>> > principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few
>> of
>> > those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and
>> resources
>> > that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among
>> few.
>> >
>> > There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has
>> been
>> > discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are
>> giving
>> > to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
>> >
>> > * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
>> position
>> > of the Web Foundation.
>> >
>> > Renata
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> > Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jeanette,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
>> >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed
>> information
>> >> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions?
>> >> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about
>> >> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of
>> corporations,
>> >> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller
>> entrepreneurs,
>> >> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the
>> criteria to
>> >> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF
>> has a
>> >> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in
>> Davos,
>> >> to start with.
>> >>
>> >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
>> >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is
>> this
>> >> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already
>> >> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to
>> bother
>> >> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy
>> candidate.
>> >> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no
>> copyright
>> >> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for
>> >> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN
>> and a
>> >> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those
>> without a
>> >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> JC
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled
>> >> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with
>> >> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic
>> question is
>> >> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates
>> who
>> >> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we
>> have
>> >> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in
>> >> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that
>> those who
>> >> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
>> >> Jeanette
>> >>
>> >> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Nnenna.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>> >>
>> >> opinion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>> >>
>> >> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>> >>
>> >> reciprocated.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>> >>
>> >> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>> >>
>> >> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would
>> >>
>> >> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>> >>
>> >> some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
>> >>
>> >> respect differences of opinion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>> >>
>> >> APC as  " an international network and non profit organisation that
>> >>
>> >> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>> >>
>> >> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the
>> >>
>> >> pursuit of social justice.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ian Peter
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>> >>
>> >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>> >>
>> >> To: michael gurstein
>> >>
>> >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
>> >>
>> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>> >>
>> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
>> >>
>> >> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
>> >>
>> >> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
>> >>
>> >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
>> >>
>> >> Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>> >>
>> >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
>> >>
>> >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I will rest my case for now
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nnenna
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>> >
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
>> >>
>> >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>> >>
>> >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
>> >>
>> >> social justice.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> M
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> >>
>> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
>> >>
>> >> Esterhuysen
>> >>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>> >>
>> >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>> >>
>> >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>> >>
>> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>> >>
>> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dear all
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>> >>
>> >> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>> >>
>> >> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
>> >>
>> >> IG, so apologies for not participating.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>> >>
>> >> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
>> >>
>> >> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
>> >>
>> >> process a try.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>> >>
>> >> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
>> >>
>> >> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>> >>
>> >> legitimate and clear.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
>> >>
>> >> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
>> >>
>> >> and white'.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>> >>
>> >> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
>> >>
>> >> August have actually been addressed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>> >>
>> >> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
>> >>
>> >> its mechanisms.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>> >>
>> >> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
>> >>
>> >> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to
>> >>
>> >> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
>> >>
>> >> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>> >>
>> >> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>> >>
>> >> processes and mechanisms.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>> >>
>> >> following:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>> >>
>> >> - a limited timeframe
>> >>
>> >> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
>> >>
>> >> continue or not
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>> >>
>> >> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>> >>
>> >> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>> >>
>> >> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
>> >>
>> >> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
>> >>
>> >> out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
>> >>
>> >> we can always withdraw.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>> >>
>> >> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights
>> >>
>> >> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
>> >>
>> >> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the
>> >>
>> >> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
>> >>
>> >> implement, internet governance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Anriette
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   Dear all,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
>> >>
>> >> some light on why their government has decided to support this
>> >>
>> >> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I
>> >>
>> >> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
>> >>
>> >> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
>> >>
>> >> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>> >>
>> >> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>> >>
>> >> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>> >>
>> >> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
>> >>
>> >> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>> >>
>> >> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
>> >>
>> >> themselves some fixed seats.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>> >>
>> >> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>> >>
>> >> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others
>> >>
>> >> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at
>> >>
>> >> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would
>> >>
>> >> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like
>> >>
>> >> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
>> >>
>> >> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the
>> >>
>> >> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that
>> >>
>> >> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
>> >>
>> >> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
>> >>
>> >> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
>> >>
>> >> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
>> >>
>> >> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
>> >>
>> >> not so certain)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>> >>
>> >> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>> >>
>> >> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>> >>
>> >> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>> >>
>> >> forward.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   Thanks and best,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   Anja
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>> >>
>> >> Society members here.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>> >>
>> >> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>> >>
>> >> withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>> >>
>> >> dont think we should miss out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
>> >>
>> >> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>> >>
>> >> interested in the NMI.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>> >>
>> >> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>> >>
>> >> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>> >>
>> >> participate.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   All for now
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   Nnenna
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> >>
>> >> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Jeremy,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Thanks for your email.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
>> >>
>> >> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>> >>
>> >> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>> >>
>> >> politics.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>> >>
>> >> and impact.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>> >>
>> >> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>> >>
>> >> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>> >>
>> >> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>> >>
>> >> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends
>> >>
>> >> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
>> >>
>> >> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>> >>
>> >> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
>> >>
>> >> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
>> >>
>> >> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>> >>
>> >> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
>> >>
>> >> such as
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>> >>
>> >> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>> >>
>> >> and growing?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>> >>
>> >> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>> >>
>> >> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>> >>
>> >> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>> >>
>> >> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>> >>
>> >> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>> >>
>> >> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
>> >>
>> >> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
>> >>
>> >> CS.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>> >>
>> >> than IANA for example?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>> >>
>> >> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying
>> >>
>> >> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
>> >>
>> >> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
>> >>
>> >> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their
>> >>
>> >> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
>> >>
>> >> also create more "values".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless,
>> >>
>> >> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
>> >>
>> >> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>> >>
>> >> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>> >>
>> >> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>> >>
>> >> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it
>> >>
>> >> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
>> >>
>> >> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>> >>
>> >> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>> >>
>> >> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>> >>
>> >> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We
>> >>
>> >> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
>> >>
>> >> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>> >>
>> >> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we
>> >>
>> >> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow
>> >>
>> >> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
>> >>
>> >> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
>> >>
>> >> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done,
>> >>
>> >> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
>> >>
>> >> comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>> >>
>> >> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
>> >>
>> >> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having
>> >>
>> >> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
>> >>
>> >> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
>> >>
>> >> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
>> >>
>> >> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
>> >>
>> >> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the
>> >>
>> >> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
>> >>
>> >> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only
>> >>
>> >> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
>> >>
>> >> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some
>> >>
>> >> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias
>> >>
>> >> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>> >>
>> >> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>> >>
>> >> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales
>> >>
>> >> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>> >>
>> >> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that
>> >>
>> >> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
>> >>
>> >> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
>> >>
>> >> debate. That would be fair.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     JC
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> >>
>> >> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
>> >>
>> >> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
>> >>
>> >> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about
>> >>
>> >> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for this
>> >>
>> >> list.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>> >>
>> >> to non JNC members:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>> >>
>> >> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew
>> >>
>> >> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>> >>
>> >> Initiative)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>> >>
>> >> quarters to create a "UN Security Council"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>> >>
>> >> Chehadé: ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative
>> >>
>> >> as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global [Internet]
>> >>
>> >> governance".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>> >>
>> >> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>> >>
>> >> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt)
>> >>
>> >> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>> >>
>> >> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
>> >>
>> >> different participants.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>> >>
>> >> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>> >>
>> >> meeting. On this much we agree.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>> >>
>> >> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
>> >>
>> >> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
>> >>
>> >> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>> >>
>> >> certainly have
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (
>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles
>> ).
>> >>
>> >> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>> >>
>> >> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>> >>
>> >> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>> >>
>> >> endorsement of the Initiative.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
>> >>
>> >> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>> >>
>> >> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>> >>
>> >> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>> >>
>> >> flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because
>> >>
>> >> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than
>> >>
>> >> me monopolising the conversation.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Jeremy Malcolm
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     https://eff.org
>> >>
>> >>     jmalcolm at eff.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>     ____________________________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>     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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> >>
>> >>   The Internet Democracy Project
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> >>
>> >>   www.internetdemocracy.in
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________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 esterhuysenexecutive
>> >>
>> >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>> >>
>> >> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>
>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>
>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Renata Avila
>> > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want
>> > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
>> > +44 7477168593 (UK)
>> >
>> > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
>> D.C.
>> > 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/7b6cd476/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Nov 20 12:30:04 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:30:04 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>
	<CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
	<0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>
	<4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
	<CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<546D9597.1080702@apc.org>
	<238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
	<CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
	<AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <20141120183004.2dcc15c6@quill>

Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
> reciprocated.

I would like to hereby express my sincere respect for all activists
and for all of organized civil society and for all others who work on
the basis of values of social justice, human rights, democracy and the
rule of law, and whose objectives include to improve the lives of
people.

However I do not think that such respect implies that all communication
must always explicitly express this respect, nor that it would imply
that pointed questions and a focus on aspects of criticism are not
sometimes warranted. While we may disagree in specific situations on
whether something is deserving of criticism, I think we all agree in
principle that there are situations in the world where things are
seriously going wrong and which can't be expected to improve in the
absence of criticism.

Of course it is important for such criticism to be expressed within the
boundaries of what is acceptable conduct in the context of democratic
discourse. (A reasonably good characterization of where these
boundaries should be considered to be in the context of an email
discussion list is expressed in the IGC's “posting rules”, which the
IGC unfortunately seems to be institutionally incapable of enforcing or
otherwise living up to -- this has been the case even when a serious
attempt to achieve that was made, as I did during my time as IGC
co-coordinator.) Criticism which violates these boundaries is indeed
incompatible with the principle of mutual respect even in the presence
of potentially serious disagreements.

Specifically, I do not think that the JNC position of “we think it
shouldn't be done, and we criticize those who do it” is any more a
disrespectful stance than a position of “we take note that JNC thinks
it shouldn't be done and we respect that but be still do it” which is
also not disrespectful.

Greetings,
Norbert
JNC co-convenor

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Thu Nov 20 12:33:46 2014
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:33:46 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CAEhPqwqXzowRbmF3GsKHCfcQAGycvskFhbj8zEMbR7=W9Uh=Zg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
 <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
 <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>
 <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwqXzowRbmF3GsKHCfcQAGycvskFhbj8zEMbR7=W9Uh=Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxnhxkdCCwHFdQx5FSB8FdT6MBOPBBP6pcWyMHNPXM3OA@mail.gmail.com>

I will note that it's quite good for there to be a contingent of civil
society that's refusing to accommodate -- leaves a clear claim among
civil society advocates to the priority of MSism as it was before
"Fadi's phase II."

Keep in mind Fadi's likely enough doing this NMI and GIP phase
*because* he didn't get everything he wanted from NM.br .


Seth (still agnostic, but I think a divide on this point in civil
society is a good thing, so long as you're clear what you gain by
drawing the line)

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva
<Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the
> deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top
> among them being:-
> 1. Have a bottom up  approach
> 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent
> seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share
> the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are
> being dangled at CS.
> 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is
> build upon with input from all.
>
> Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would
> not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI
> stating our objections and expectations.
>
> Sincerely,
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh
> B: http://lord.me.ke/
> T: twitter.com/lordmwesh
>
> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk
> on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>
>
> On 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at the
>> closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any
>> effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs.
>> Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, somehow,
>> regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against all
>> citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language
>> against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to
>> please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts of the
>> copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just the
>> result of an event outside the regular events around Internet Governance is
>> simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two of
>> the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies, of our
>> free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome
>> document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights
>> standards.
>>
>> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work by
>> CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the attached
>> maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries
>> from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It was
>> a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but, paradoxically,
>> with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but, except
>> for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and
>> Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at
>> least no unity in key demands.
>>
>> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
>> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is flawed
>> and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil Society.
>> Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher but
>> lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and concerns
>> for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of such
>> principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of
>> those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and resources
>> that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few.
>>
>> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has been
>> discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are giving
>> to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
>>
>> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or position
>> of the Web Foundation.
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeanette,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
>>> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed information
>>> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions?
>>> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about
>>> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of corporations,
>>> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs,
>>> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to
>>> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a
>>> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in Davos,
>>> to start with.
>>>
>>> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
>>> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is this
>>> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already
>>> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to bother
>>> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy candidate.
>>> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no copyright
>>> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for
>>> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a
>>> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a
>>> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> JC
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled
>>> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with
>>> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is
>>> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who
>>> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have
>>> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in
>>> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those who
>>> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
>>> Jeanette
>>>
>>> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Nnenna.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>>>
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>>>
>>> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>>>
>>> reciprocated.
>>>
>>>
>>> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>>>
>>> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>>>
>>> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would
>>>
>>> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>>>
>>> some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
>>>
>>> respect differences of opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>>>
>>> APC as  " an international network and non profit organisation that
>>>
>>> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>>>
>>> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the
>>>
>>> pursuit of social justice.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>>>
>>> To: michael gurstein
>>>
>>> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>>
>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
>>>
>>> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
>>>
>>> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
>>>
>>> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
>>>
>>> Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>>>
>>> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
>>>
>>> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will rest my case for now
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nnenna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
>>>
>>> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>>>
>>> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
>>>
>>> social justice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
>>>
>>> Esterhuysen
>>>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>>>
>>> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>
>>> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>>
>>> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>>
>>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>>>
>>> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>>>
>>> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
>>>
>>> IG, so apologies for not participating.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>>>
>>> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
>>>
>>> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
>>>
>>> process a try.
>>>
>>>
>>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>>>
>>> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
>>>
>>> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>>>
>>> legitimate and clear.
>>>
>>>
>>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
>>>
>>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
>>>
>>> and white'.
>>>
>>>
>>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>>>
>>> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
>>>
>>> August have actually been addressed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>>>
>>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
>>>
>>> its mechanisms.
>>>
>>>
>>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>>>
>>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
>>>
>>> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to
>>>
>>> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
>>>
>>> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>>>
>>> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>>>
>>> processes and mechanisms.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>>>
>>>
>>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>>>
>>> following:
>>>
>>>
>>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>>>
>>> - a limited timeframe
>>>
>>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
>>>
>>> continue or not
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>>>
>>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>>>
>>> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>>>
>>> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
>>>
>>> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
>>>
>>> out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
>>>
>>> we can always withdraw.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>>>
>>> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights
>>>
>>> inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
>>>
>>> think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the
>>>
>>> NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
>>>
>>> implement, internet governance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
>>>
>>> some light on why their government has decided to support this
>>>
>>> initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I
>>>
>>> have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
>>>
>>> help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
>>>
>>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>>>
>>> as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>>>
>>> who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>>>
>>> wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
>>>
>>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>>>
>>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
>>>
>>> themselves some fixed seats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>>>
>>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>>>
>>> clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others
>>>
>>> on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at
>>>
>>> NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would
>>>
>>> be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like
>>>
>>> the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
>>>
>>> things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the
>>>
>>> structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that
>>>
>>> they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
>>>
>>> say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
>>>
>>> representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
>>>
>>> conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
>>>
>>> that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
>>>
>>> not so certain)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>>>
>>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>>>
>>> Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>>>
>>> thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>>>
>>> forward.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   Thanks and best,
>>>
>>>
>>>   Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>>>
>>> Society members here.
>>>
>>>
>>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>>>
>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>>>
>>> withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>>>
>>> dont think we should miss out.
>>>
>>>
>>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
>>>
>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>>>
>>> interested in the NMI.
>>>
>>>
>>> I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>>>
>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>>
>>>
>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>>>
>>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>>>
>>> participate.
>>>
>>>
>>>   All for now
>>>
>>>
>>>   Nnenna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>>
>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     Jeremy,
>>>
>>>
>>>     Thanks for your email.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both do
>>>
>>> not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>>>
>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>>>
>>> politics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>>>
>>> and impact.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>>
>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>>
>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>>>
>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>>>
>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends
>>>
>>> with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
>>>
>>> tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>>>
>>> for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
>>>
>>> behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
>>>
>>> troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>>>
>>> street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
>>>
>>> such as
>>>
>>>
>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>>
>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>>
>>>
>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>>>
>>> and growing?
>>>
>>>
>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>>
>>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>>>
>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>>>
>>> Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>>>
>>> surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>>
>>>
>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>>>
>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>>>
>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
>>>
>>> they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
>>>
>>> CS.
>>>
>>>
>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>>>
>>> than IANA for example?
>>>
>>>
>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>>
>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying
>>>
>>> the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
>>>
>>> ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
>>>
>>> the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their
>>>
>>> innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
>>>
>>> also create more "values".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless,
>>>
>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
>>>
>>> weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>>>
>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>>>
>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>>>
>>> their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it
>>>
>>> not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
>>>
>>> directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>>>
>>> launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>>>
>>> creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>>>
>>> boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We
>>>
>>> are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
>>>
>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>>>
>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we
>>>
>>> live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow
>>>
>>> citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
>>>
>>> not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
>>>
>>> realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be done,
>>>
>>> now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
>>>
>>> comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>>>
>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
>>>
>>> more people. We should not care about that. We should care about having
>>>
>>> a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
>>>
>>> current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
>>>
>>> when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
>>>
>>> nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
>>>
>>> mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the
>>>
>>> public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
>>>
>>> through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only
>>>
>>> a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
>>>
>>> equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead to some
>>>
>>> social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bias
>>>
>>> is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>>>
>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>>>
>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales
>>>
>>> as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>>
>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that
>>>
>>> we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
>>>
>>> hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
>>>
>>> debate. That would be fair.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     JC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>>
>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On a
>>>
>>> personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
>>>
>>> on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Within the next few days I'm going to write a separate blog post about
>>>
>>> this at igfwatch.org, because JNC's pathologies are off-topic for this
>>>
>>> list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>>>
>>> to non JNC members:
>>>
>>>
>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>>>
>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew
>>>
>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>>>
>>> Initiative)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>>>
>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>>>
>>> Chehadé: ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiative
>>>
>>> as in your letter as "being 'the' mechanism for global [Internet]
>>>
>>> governance".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>>>
>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>>>
>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt)
>>>
>>> of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>>>
>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
>>>
>>> different participants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>>>
>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>>>
>>> meeting. On this much we agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>>>
>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
>>>
>>> seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
>>>
>>> WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>>>
>>> certainly have
>>>
>>>
>>> (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>>>
>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>>>
>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>>>
>>> other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>>>
>>> endorsement of the Initiative.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which was
>>>
>>> sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>>>
>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>>>
>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>>>
>>> flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just because
>>>
>>> you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I'm not.
>>>
>>> Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than
>>>
>>> me monopolising the conversation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --
>>>
>>>
>>>     Jeremy Malcolm
>>>
>>>
>>>     Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>
>>>
>>>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>
>>>
>>>     https://eff.org
>>>
>>>     jmalcolm at eff.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>     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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   --
>>>
>>>
>>>   Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>
>>>   The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>>
>>>   +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>
>>>   www.internetdemocracy.in
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________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 esterhuysenexecutive
>>>
>>> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>>>
>>> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Renata Avila
>> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want
>> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
>> +44 7477168593 (UK)
>>
>> World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington D.C.
>> 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Nov 20 12:55:26 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:55:26 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>	<CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>	<0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>	<4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>	<CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca>

The ought to be some limits to having to read silly conclusions like 
this one.

--c.a.

On 11/20/14 08:13, michael gurstein wrote:
> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social
> justice.
>
> M
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette
> Esterhuysen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
> *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
> *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
> Dear all
>
> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School on
> IG, so apologies for not participating.
>
> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there
> are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process
> a try.
>
> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
> legitimate and clear.
>
> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and
> white'.
>
> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August
> have actually been addressed.
>
> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its
> mechanisms.
>
> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to
> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
> processes and mechanisms.
>
> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>
> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
> following:
>
> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
> - a limited timeframe
> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
> continue or not
>
>
> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the
> process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>
> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
> out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and
> we can always withdraw.
>
> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,
> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive
> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that
> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial
> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,
> internet governance.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps
>     shed some light on why their government has decided to support this
>     initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very
>     helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the
>     past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>
>     For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in
>     favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval
>     (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual
>     organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and
>     report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if
>     backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to
>     see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less
>     so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats.
>
>     I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>     means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>     clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many
>     others on this list too) have already been contacted by the
>     Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial
>     Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the
>     NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others
>     would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen
>     anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the
>     initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not
>     have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they
>     would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative
>     from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in
>     October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might
>     have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so certain)
>
>     I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start
>     exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work
>     suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what
>     they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and
>     take it forward.
>
>     Thanks and best,
>
>     Anja
>
>     On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>     Society members here.
>
>     My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>     table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>     withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>
>     I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa,
>     I dont think we should miss out.
>
>     NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to
>     participate.  From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons
>     were already very interested in the NMI.
>
>     I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>     participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>
>     Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And
>     at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>     participate.
>
>     All for now
>
>     Nnenna
>
>     On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>     Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>         Jeremy,
>
>         Thanks for your email.
>
>         Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we
>         both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply
>         be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we
>         are in real politics.
>
>         Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better
>         effect and impact.
>
>         What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>         participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling
>         set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall
>         confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to
>         illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of
>         NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am
>         not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their
>         gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my
>         life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of
>         that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers
>         from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>         street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at
>         stake such as
>
>         - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the
>         US refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>
>         - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep
>         maturing and growing?
>
>         - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>           insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't
>         encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to
>         please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really
>         go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they
>         told us.
>
>         - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against
>         the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in
>         my view, that search engines are touching at personal data,
>         beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages?
>         This is a real good debate for CS.
>
>         - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More
>         important than IANA for example?
>
>         - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when
>         it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN
>         is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How
>         can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS
>         minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am
>         positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more
>         powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values".
>
>         I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>         Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is
>         relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and
>         this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis
>         wrote someone today.
>
>         Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS
>         in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had
>         to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles,
>         to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the
>         'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals
>         and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent
>         debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their
>         committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is
>         critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all
>         losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>
>         So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
>         debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments,
>         citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the
>         growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face
>         of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS
>         is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need
>         to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away
>         our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting
>         our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas
>         of the WEF.
>
>         Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own
>         mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and
>         reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We
>         should care about having a collective action that would oblige
>         governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more
>         progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene
>         and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often
>         been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS
>         narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the
>         public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had
>         to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone
>         nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys
>         technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could
>         work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a
>         disruption that would unleash violence.
>
>         JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough,
>         our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no
>         corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound
>         democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we
>         are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not
>         characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>
>         There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>         society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all
>         agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as
>         we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting
>         their money in the debate. That would be fair.
>
>         JC
>
>         Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>
>
>
>         On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>         Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>         <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>             I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first
>             email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to
>             elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues"
>             you are referring to,
>
>         Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post
>         about this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org/>, because JNC’s
>         pathologies are off-topic for this list.
>
>
>
>         The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do
>         listen to non JNC members:
>
>         - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>         Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world".
>         (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of
>         what is the WIB Initiative)
>
>         Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>
>
>
>         - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>         quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>
>         A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>
>
>
>         - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans,
>         ... Fadi Chehadé: ...
>
>         None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>         Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for
>         global [Internet] governance”.
>
>
>
>         Based on these official and public statement, I can only read
>         JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC
>         reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up
>         (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the
>         WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in
>         Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants.
>
>         I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial
>         Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking
>         of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.
>
>             So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that
>             convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges
>             the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the
>             diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>
>         Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part
>         personally I certainly have
>         (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>         What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the
>         NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning
>         the motives of other civil society groups and falsely
>         attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative.
>
>         Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant
>         which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have
>         subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well
>         as one against).
>
>
>
>         By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>
>         I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>         because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding
>         a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response
>         just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was
>         ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond to the
>         balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the
>         conversation.
>
>         --
>
>         Jeremy Malcolm
>
>         Senior Global Policy Analyst
>
>         Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
>         https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
>         jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>
>         Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
>         :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>     --
>
>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>     The Internet Democracy Project
>
>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>           bestbits at lists.bestbits.net  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>
>           http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> --
>
> `````````````````````````````````
>
> anriette esterhuysen
>
> executive director
>
> association for progressive communications
>
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>
> anriette at apc.org  <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>
> www.apc.org  <http://www.apc.org>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Nov 20 13:04:22 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:04:22 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com> <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca>

Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles and 
roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"??

--c.a.

On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at
> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at
> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final.
> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least,
> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments
> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed,
> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the
> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid,
> multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such
> document, which so far is just the result of an event outside the
> regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous and silly,
> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important battles
> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free societies. A
> rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome document will
> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights standards.
>
> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work
> by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the
> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest
> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the
> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate,
> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet
> Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions of
> privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like Mishi,
> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key demands.
>
> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is
> flawed and has very little reform or even information potential for
> Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting the
> adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks
> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the most
> affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the one
> forward and because, again, very few of those who are not represented
> will be able to afford the time and resources that such initiative
> demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few.
>
> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has
> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we
> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
>
> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
> position of the Web Foundation.
>
> Renata
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>     Jeanette,
>
>     Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
>     importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed
>     information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to
>     her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the
>     reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor?
>     WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil society
>     engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much more jobs
>     that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is
>     worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high
>     media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in
>     Davos, to start with.
>
>     You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
>     totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what
>     is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab
>     is already elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do
>     we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any qualified
>     and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement
>     and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are
>     willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some
>     have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few other cool
>     places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a
>     comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
>
>     Thanks
>     JC
>
>
>     Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
>>     Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more
>>     principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to
>>     communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think
>>     the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of
>>     qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute
>>     on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced
>>     people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself,
>>     don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those
>>     who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
>>     Jeanette
>>
>>     On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter
>>     <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>>     Thanks Nnenna.
>>>
>>>     Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>>>     opinion.
>>>
>>>     Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>>>     It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>>>     reciprocated.
>>>
>>>     The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>>>     someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>>>     people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It
>>>     would
>>>     be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>>>     some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>>>
>>>     We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can
>>>     agree to
>>>     respect differences of opinion.
>>>
>>>     Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>>>     APC as  “ an international network and non profit organisation that
>>>     wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>>>     our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not
>>>     abandoning the
>>>     pursuit of social justice.
>>>
>>>     Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>     Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>>>     To: michael gurstein
>>>     Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
>>>     Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>>     NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>>
>>>     Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
>>>     the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
>>>     not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being
>>>     construed as
>>>     abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>>>
>>>
>>>     If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was
>>>     Nelson
>>>     Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>>>     "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with
>>>     your
>>>     enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>>>
>>>
>>>     I will rest my case for now
>>>
>>>
>>>     Nnenna
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein
>>>     <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>>     wrote:
>>>
>>>     So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI
>>>     offers
>>>     some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>>>     you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
>>>     social justice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>     [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] On Behalf Of Anriette
>>>     Esterhuysen
>>>     Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>>>     To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>     Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>>>     Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>>     NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Dear all
>>>
>>>     I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>>>     members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>>>     project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African
>>>     School on
>>>     IG, so apologies for not participating.
>>>
>>>     Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>>>     also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
>>>     there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
>>>     process a try.
>>>
>>>     I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>>>     and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger
>>>     position.
>>>     I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>>>     legitimate and clear.
>>>
>>>     I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently
>>>     from how
>>>     Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
>>>     and white'.
>>>
>>>     My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>>>     expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
>>>     August have actually been addressed.
>>>
>>>     I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>>>     transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
>>>     its mechanisms.
>>>
>>>     But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>>>     should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental
>>>     spaces, at
>>>     national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty
>>>     naive to
>>>     many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
>>>     democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>>>     closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>>>     processes and mechanisms.
>>>
>>>     I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>>>
>>>     My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>>>     following:
>>>
>>>     - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>>>     - a limited timeframe
>>>     - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess
>>>     whether we
>>>     continue or not
>>>
>>>
>>>     My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>>>     closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>>>     get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>>>     particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to
>>>     influence the
>>>     process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>>>
>>>     This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that
>>>     turns
>>>     out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth
>>>     taking, and
>>>     we can always withdraw.
>>>
>>>     Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>>>     progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human
>>>     rights
>>>     inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
>>>     think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved
>>>     through the
>>>     NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
>>>     implement, internet governance.
>>>
>>>     Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>>       Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps
>>>     shed
>>>     some light on why their government has decided to support this
>>>     initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very
>>>     helpful? I
>>>     have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
>>>     help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in
>>>     favour
>>>     of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>>>     as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>>>     who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>>>     wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the
>>>     Brazilian
>>>     government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>>>     centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already
>>>     given
>>>     themselves some fixed seats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>>>     means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>>>     clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many
>>>     others
>>>     on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance
>>>     Lab at
>>>     NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that
>>>     would
>>>     be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to
>>>     feel like
>>>     the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
>>>     things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them,
>>>     somehow the
>>>     structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy
>>>     that
>>>     they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
>>>     say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
>>>     representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
>>>     conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
>>>     that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
>>>     not so certain)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>>>     the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>>>     Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>>>     thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>>>     forward.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       Thanks and best,
>>>
>>>       Anja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>>>     Society members here.
>>>
>>>     My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>>>     table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>>>     withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>>>
>>>     I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>>>     dont think we should miss out.
>>>
>>>     NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to
>>>     participate.
>>>     From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>>>     interested in the NMI.
>>>
>>>     I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>>>     participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>>
>>>     Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people.
>>>     And at
>>>     the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>>>     participate.
>>>
>>>       All for now
>>>
>>>       Nnenna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>>     Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Jeremy,
>>>
>>>         Thanks for your email.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we
>>>     both do
>>>     not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>>>     terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>>>     politics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>>>     and impact.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>>     participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>>     definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It
>>>     looks
>>>     more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>>>     wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and
>>>     friends
>>>     with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
>>>     tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>>>     for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
>>>     behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
>>>     troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>>>     street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
>>>     such as
>>>
>>>     - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>>     refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>>
>>>     - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>>>     and growing?
>>>
>>>     - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>>     insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption
>>>     part of
>>>     the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>>>     Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>>>     surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>>
>>>     - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>>>     decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my
>>>     view, that
>>>     search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
>>>     they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
>>>     CS.
>>>
>>>     - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>>>     than IANA for example?
>>>
>>>     - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>>     comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is
>>>     saying
>>>     the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
>>>     ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
>>>     the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with
>>>     their
>>>     innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
>>>     also create more "values".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>>>     Nevertheless,
>>>     CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
>>>     weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>>>     JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>>>     satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>>>     their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply
>>>     get it
>>>     not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
>>>     directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>>>     launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>>>     creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>>>     boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all
>>>     cry. We
>>>     are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
>>>     debate
>>>     and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>>>     corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing
>>>     asymmetry we
>>>     live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our
>>>     fellow
>>>     citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
>>>     not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
>>>     realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be
>>>     done,
>>>     now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
>>>     comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>>>     JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
>>>     more people. We should not care about that. We should care about
>>>     having
>>>     a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
>>>     current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
>>>     when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
>>>     nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
>>>     mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least
>>>     on the
>>>     public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
>>>     through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere.
>>>     Only
>>>     a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
>>>     equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead
>>>     to some
>>>     social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough,
>>>     our bias
>>>     is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>>>     barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic
>>>     concern (to
>>>     avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into
>>>     rationales
>>>     as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>>     society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all
>>>     agree that
>>>     we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
>>>     hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
>>>     debate. That would be fair.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         JC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>>     Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email.
>>>     On a
>>>     personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
>>>     on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post
>>>     about
>>>     this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org>, because JNC’s
>>>     pathologies are off-topic for this
>>>     list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>>>     to non JNC members:
>>>
>>>     - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>>>     Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world".
>>>     (Ask Drew
>>>     Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>>>     Initiative)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>>>     quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>>>     Chehadé: ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>>>     Initiative
>>>     as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet]
>>>     governance”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>>>     statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>>>     participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to
>>>     blunt)
>>>     of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>>>     what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
>>>     different participants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>>>     (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>>>     meeting. On this much we agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>>>     should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
>>>     seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
>>>     WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>>>     certainly have
>>>     (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>>>     What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>>>     Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>>>     other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>>>     endorsement of the Initiative.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant
>>>     which was
>>>     sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>>>     list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>>>     because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>>>     flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just
>>>     because
>>>     you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.
>>>     Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions
>>>     rather than
>>>     me monopolising the conversation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         --
>>>
>>>         Jeremy Malcolm
>>>
>>>         Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>
>>>         Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>
>>>     https://eff.org
>>>     jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>       To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       --
>>>
>>>       Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>       The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>>     +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>>>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________You
>>>     received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
>>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To> unsubscribe or change
>>>     your settings,
>>>     visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive
>>>     directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>>>     melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>>     <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>     --
>>     Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Renata Avila *
> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
> +44 7477168593 (UK)
>
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org*
> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Nov 20 13:22:29 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:22:29 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org>	<CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>	<0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org>	<4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>	<CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <265501d004ee$f1fc8490$d5f58db0$@gmail.com>

If you are committing yourself to a process which is being framed, driven and evidently stage managed by the 1% it is very hard, I believe, to draw any other conclusion. Or perhaps the 1%/WEF will suddenly discover a passion for social justice and we can all relax.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:55 AM
To: michael gurstein; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Anja Kovacs'; 'Nnenna Nwakanma'
Cc: 'Governance'; 'Best Bits'
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

The ought to be some limits to having to read silly conclusions like this one.

--c.a.

On 11/20/14 08:13, michael gurstein wrote:
> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers 
> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, 
> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of 
> social justice.
>
> M
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette 
> Esterhuysen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
> *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
> *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in 
> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
> Dear all
>
> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our 
> members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with 
> project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African School 
> on IG, so apologies for not participating.
>
> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have 
> also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while 
> there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the 
> process a try.
>
> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, 
> and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.
> I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is 
> legitimate and clear.
>
> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how 
> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black 
> and white'.
>
> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we 
> expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late 
> August have actually been addressed.
>
> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more 
> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and 
> its mechanisms.
>
> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we 
> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at 
> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to 
> many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive 
> democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through 
> closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental 
> processes and mechanisms.
>
> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>
> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
> following:
>
> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
> - a limited timeframe
> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether 
> we continue or not
>
>
> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it 
> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to 
> get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our 
> particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to influence 
> the process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>
> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns 
> out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, 
> and we can always withdraw.
>
> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most 
> progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human 
> rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  
> I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through 
> the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, 
> and implement, internet governance.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps
>     shed some light on why their government has decided to support this
>     initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very
>     helpful? I have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the
>     past, and can't help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>
>     For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in
>     favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval
>     (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual
>     organisations who want to participate to continue doing so and
>     report back to the wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if
>     backed by the Brazilian government, is just not the place I want to
>     see emerge as a new power centre in Internet governance - even less
>     so as they have already given themselves some fixed seats.
>
>     I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>     means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>     clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many
>     others on this list too) have already been contacted by the
>     Governance Lab at NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial
>     Solutions map that would be developed under the flag of the
>     NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing we and others
>     would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would happen
>     anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the
>     initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not
>     have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they
>     would go ahead without us anyway is something that a representative
>     from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in
>     October. Some of the individual initiative, such as that map, might
>     have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am not so 
> certain)
>
>     I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start
>     exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work
>     suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what
>     they're thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and
>     take it forward.
>
>     Thanks and best,
>
>     Anja
>
>     On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>     Society members here.
>
>     My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>     table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>     withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>
>     I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa,
>     I dont think we should miss out.
>
>     NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to
>     participate.  From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons
>     were already very interested in the NMI.
>
>     I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>     participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>
>     Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And
>     at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>     participate.
>
>     All for now
>
>     Nnenna
>
>     On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>     Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>         Jeremy,
>
>         Thanks for your email.
>
>         Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we
>         both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply
>         be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we
>         are in real politics.
>
>         Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better
>         effect and impact.
>
>         What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>         participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling
>         set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall
>         confusion. It looks more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to
>         illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of
>         NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am
>         not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their
>         gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my
>         life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of
>         that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers
>         from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>         street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at
>         stake such as
>
>         - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the
>         US refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>
>         - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep
>         maturing and growing?
>
>         - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>           insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't
>         encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to
>         please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really
>         go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do with IG they
>         told us.
>
>         - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against
>         the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in
>         my view, that search engines are touching at personal data,
>         beyond the simple links they assembled in their result pages?
>         This is a real good debate for CS.
>
>         - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More
>         important than IANA for example?
>
>         - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when
>         it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN
>         is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How
>         can we help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS
>         minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am
>         positively impressed with their innovative abilities, much more
>         powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values".
>
>         I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>         Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is
>         relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and
>         this is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis
>         wrote someone today.
>
>         Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS
>         in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had
>         to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles,
>         to simply get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the
>         'nice guys" not to go directly after the right ideas, proposals
>         and suggestions when launching an open, honest, transparent
>         debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their
>         committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is
>         critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all
>         losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>
>         So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
>         debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments,
>         citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the
>         growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face
>         of History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS
>         is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need
>         to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking away
>         our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting
>         our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas
>         of the WEF.
>
>         Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own
>         mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and
>         reaching more and more people. We should not care about that. We
>         should care about having a collective action that would oblige
>         governments, corps and the current mandarins to take more
>         progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene
>         and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often
>         been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS
>         narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the
>         public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had
>         to go through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone
>         nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys
>         technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could
>         work, but then it would lead to some social disaster, a
>         disruption that would unleash violence.
>
>         JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough,
>         our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no
>         corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound
>         democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we
>         are ready to go into rationales as long as we are not
>         characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>
>         There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>         society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all
>         agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as
>         we do not have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting
>         their money in the debate. That would be fair.
>
>         JC
>
>         Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>
>
>
>         On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>         Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>         <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>             I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first
>             email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to
>             elaborate about the "dumping on civil society colleagues"
>             you are referring to,
>
>         Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post
>         about this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org/>, because JNC’s
>         pathologies are off-topic for this list.
>
>
>
>         The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do
>         listen to non JNC members:
>
>         - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>         Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world".
>         (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of
>         what is the WIB Initiative)
>
>         Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>
>
>
>         - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>         quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>
>         A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>
>
>
>         - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans,
>         ... Fadi Chehadé: ...
>
>         None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>         Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for
>         global [Internet] governance”.
>
>
>
>         Based on these official and public statement, I can only read
>         JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC
>         reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up
>         (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the
>         WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated ultimately in
>         Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants.
>
>         I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial
>         Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking
>         of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.
>
>             So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that
>             convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges
>             the serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the
>             diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>
>         Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part
>         personally I certainly have
>         (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>         What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the
>         NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning
>         the motives of other civil society groups and falsely
>         attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiative.
>
>         Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant
>         which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have
>         subsequently received, off list, two emails in support, as well
>         as one against).
>
>
>
>         By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>
>         I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>         because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding
>         a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response
>         just because you suggested in most recent mail that I was
>         ignoring you - I’m not.  Anyway, others can respond to the
>         balance of your questions rather than me monopolising the
>         conversation.
>
>         --
>
>         Jeremy Malcolm
>
>         Senior Global Policy Analyst
>
>         Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
>         https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
>         jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>
>         Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
>         :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
>     --
>
>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>     The Internet Democracy Project
>
>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
>           bestbits at lists.bestbits.net  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>
>           http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
> --
>
> `````````````````````````````````
>
> anriette esterhuysen
>
> executive director
>
> association for progressive communications
>
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>
> anriette at apc.org  <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>
> www.apc.org  <http://www.apc.org>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>


From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Thu Nov 20 13:34:02 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 19:34:02 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com> <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net>

Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought to be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us more about what is silly here?


Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit :

> Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"??
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at
>> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at
>> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final.
>> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least,
>> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments
>> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed,
>> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the
>> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid,
>> multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such
>> document, which so far is just the result of an event outside the
>> regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous and silly,
>> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important battles
>> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free societies. A
>> rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome document will
>> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights standards.
>> 
>> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work
>> by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the
>> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest
>> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the
>> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate,
>> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet
>> Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions of
>> privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like Mishi,
>> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key demands.
>> 
>> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
>> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is
>> flawed and has very little reform or even information potential for
>> Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting the
>> adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks
>> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the most
>> affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the one
>> forward and because, again, very few of those who are not represented
>> will be able to afford the time and resources that such initiative
>> demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few.
>> 
>> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has
>> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we
>> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
>> 
>> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
>> position of the Web Foundation.
>> 
>> Renata
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>> 
>>    Jeanette,
>> 
>>    Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
>>    importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed
>>    information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to
>>    her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the
>>    reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor?
>>    WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil society
>>    engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much more jobs
>>    that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is
>>    worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high
>>    media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in
>>    Davos, to start with.
>> 
>>    You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
>>    totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what
>>    is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab
>>    is already elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do
>>    we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any qualified
>>    and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement
>>    and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are
>>    willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some
>>    have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few other cool
>>    places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a
>>    comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
>> 
>>    Thanks
>>    JC
>> 
>> 
>>    Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>> 
>>>    Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more
>>>    principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to
>>>    communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think
>>>    the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of
>>>    qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute
>>>    on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced
>>>    people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself,
>>>    don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those
>>>    who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
>>>    Jeanette
>>> 
>>>    On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter
>>>    <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>>>    Thanks Nnenna.
>>>> 
>>>>    Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>>>>    opinion.
>>>> 
>>>>    Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>>>>    It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>>>>    reciprocated.
>>>> 
>>>>    The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>>>>    someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>>>>    people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It
>>>>    would
>>>>    be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>>>>    some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>>>> 
>>>>    We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can
>>>>    agree to
>>>>    respect differences of opinion.
>>>> 
>>>>    Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>>>>    APC as  “ an international network and non profit organisation that
>>>>    wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>>>>    our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not
>>>>    abandoning the
>>>>    pursuit of social justice.
>>>> 
>>>>    Ian Peter
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>>    Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>>>>    To: michael gurstein
>>>>    Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
>>>>    Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>>>    NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>>> 
>>>>    Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
>>>>    the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
>>>>    not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being
>>>>    construed as
>>>>    abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was
>>>>    Nelson
>>>>    Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>>>>    "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with
>>>>    your
>>>>    enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    I will rest my case for now
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Nnenna
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein
>>>>    <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>>>>    wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI
>>>>    offers
>>>>    some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
>>>>    you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
>>>>    social justice.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    M
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>    <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>>>    [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>    <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] On Behalf Of Anriette
>>>>    Esterhuysen
>>>>    Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>>>>    To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>>>>    Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>>>>    Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>>>>    NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Dear all
>>>> 
>>>>    I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
>>>>    members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
>>>>    project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African
>>>>    School on
>>>>    IG, so apologies for not participating.
>>>> 
>>>>    Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have
>>>>    also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
>>>>    there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the
>>>>    process a try.
>>>> 
>>>>    I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent,
>>>>    and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger
>>>>    position.
>>>>    I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
>>>>    legitimate and clear.
>>>> 
>>>>    I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently
>>>>    from how
>>>>    Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black
>>>>    and white'.
>>>> 
>>>>    My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>>>>    expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
>>>>    August have actually been addressed.
>>>> 
>>>>    I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>>>>    transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and
>>>>    its mechanisms.
>>>> 
>>>>    But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>>>>    should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental
>>>>    spaces, at
>>>>    national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty
>>>>    naive to
>>>>    many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive
>>>>    democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through
>>>>    closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
>>>>    processes and mechanisms.
>>>> 
>>>>    I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>>>> 
>>>>    My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>>>>    following:
>>>> 
>>>>    - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>>>>    - a limited timeframe
>>>>    - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess
>>>>    whether we
>>>>    continue or not
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>>>>    closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to
>>>>    get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
>>>>    particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to
>>>>    influence the
>>>>    process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>>>> 
>>>>    This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that
>>>>    turns
>>>>    out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth
>>>>    taking, and
>>>>    we can always withdraw.
>>>> 
>>>>    Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>>>>    progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human
>>>>    rights
>>>>    inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
>>>>    think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved
>>>>    through the
>>>>    NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
>>>>    implement, internet governance.
>>>> 
>>>>    Anriette
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>      Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps
>>>>    shed
>>>>    some light on why their government has decided to support this
>>>>    initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very
>>>>    helpful? I
>>>>    have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't
>>>>    help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in
>>>>    favour
>>>>    of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though
>>>>    as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations
>>>>    who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
>>>>    wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the
>>>>    Brazilian
>>>>    government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>>>>    centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already
>>>>    given
>>>>    themselves some fixed seats.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>>>>    means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
>>>>    clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many
>>>>    others
>>>>    on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance
>>>>    Lab at
>>>>    NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that
>>>>    would
>>>>    be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to
>>>>    feel like
>>>>    the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp
>>>>    things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them,
>>>>    somehow the
>>>>    structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy
>>>>    that
>>>>    they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I would
>>>>    say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
>>>>    representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
>>>>    conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
>>>>    that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I am
>>>>    not so certain)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>>>>    the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
>>>>    Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>>>>    thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it
>>>>    forward.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>      Thanks and best,
>>>> 
>>>>      Anja
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com
>>>>    <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>>>>    Society members here.
>>>> 
>>>>    My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>>>>    table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
>>>>    withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>>>> 
>>>>    I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>>>>    dont think we should miss out.
>>>> 
>>>>    NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to
>>>>    participate.
>>>>    From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>>>>    interested in the NMI.
>>>> 
>>>>    I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>>>>    participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>>> 
>>>>    Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people.
>>>>    And at
>>>>    the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>>>>    participate.
>>>> 
>>>>      All for now
>>>> 
>>>>      Nnenna
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>>>    Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>>>    <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>        Jeremy,
>>>> 
>>>>        Thanks for your email.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we
>>>>    both do
>>>>    not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>>>>    terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>>>>    politics.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>>>>    and impact.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>>>    participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>>>    definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It
>>>>    looks
>>>>    more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>>>>    wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and
>>>>    friends
>>>>    with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
>>>>    tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant
>>>>    for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the partition
>>>>    behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call some
>>>>    troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a
>>>>    street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake
>>>>    such as
>>>> 
>>>>    - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>>>    refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>>> 
>>>>    - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>>>>    and growing?
>>>> 
>>>>    - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>>>    insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption
>>>>    part of
>>>>    the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
>>>>    Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>>>>    surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>>> 
>>>>    - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>>>>    decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my
>>>>    view, that
>>>>    search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links
>>>>    they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for
>>>>    CS.
>>>> 
>>>>    - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>>>>    than IANA for example?
>>>> 
>>>>    - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>>>    comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is
>>>>    saying
>>>>    the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
>>>>    ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all
>>>>    the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with
>>>>    their
>>>>    innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
>>>>    also create more "values".
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>>>>    Nevertheless,
>>>>    CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
>>>>    weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>>>>    JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>>>>    satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
>>>>    their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply
>>>>    get it
>>>>    not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
>>>>    directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>>>>    launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
>>>>    creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
>>>>    boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all
>>>>    cry. We
>>>>    are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
>>>>    debate
>>>>    and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>>>>    corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing
>>>>    asymmetry we
>>>>    live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our
>>>>    fellow
>>>>    citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do
>>>>    not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
>>>>    realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be
>>>>    done,
>>>>    now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the
>>>>    comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>>>>    JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and
>>>>    more people. We should not care about that. We should care about
>>>>    having
>>>>    a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
>>>>    current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism
>>>>    when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
>>>>    nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
>>>>    mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least
>>>>    on the
>>>>    public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go
>>>>    through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere.
>>>>    Only
>>>>    a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues doesn't
>>>>    equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead
>>>>    to some
>>>>    social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough,
>>>>    our bias
>>>>    is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>>>>    barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic
>>>>    concern (to
>>>>    avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into
>>>>    rationales
>>>>    as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>>>    society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all
>>>>    agree that
>>>>    we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have
>>>>    hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
>>>>    debate. That would be fair.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        JC
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>>>    Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>>>    <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email.
>>>>    On a
>>>>    personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping
>>>>    on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post
>>>>    about
>>>>    this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org>, because JNC’s
>>>>    pathologies are off-topic for this
>>>>    list.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>>>>    to non JNC members:
>>>> 
>>>>    - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>>>>    Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world".
>>>>    (Ask Drew
>>>>    Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>>>>    Initiative)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>>>>    quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>>>>    Chehadé: ...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>>>>    Initiative
>>>>    as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet]
>>>>    governance”.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>>>>    statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>>>>    participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to
>>>>    blunt)
>>>>    of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>>>>    what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
>>>>    different participants.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>>>>    (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>>>>    meeting. On this much we agree.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>>>>    should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns
>>>>    seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the
>>>>    WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>>>>    certainly have
>>>>    (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>>>>    What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>>>>    Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
>>>>    other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
>>>>    endorsement of the Initiative.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant
>>>>    which was
>>>>    sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>>>>    list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>     By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>>>>    because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
>>>>    flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just
>>>>    because
>>>>    you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not.
>>>>    Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions
>>>>    rather than
>>>>    me monopolising the conversation.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        --
>>>> 
>>>>        Jeremy Malcolm
>>>> 
>>>>        Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>> 
>>>>        Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>> 
>>>>    https://eff.org
>>>>    jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        ____________________________________________________________
>>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>      To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>      --
>>>> 
>>>>      Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>>      The Internet Democracy Project
>>>> 
>>>>    +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>>>>    www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    ____________________________________________________________You
>>>>    received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
>>>>    <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To> unsubscribe or change
>>>>    your settings,
>>>>    visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive
>>>>    directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>>>>    melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>>>    <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>>    --
>>>    Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>> 
>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>    To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>>    For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>    To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>>    Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *Renata Avila *
>> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
>> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
>> +44 7477168593 (UK)
>> 
>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
>> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org*
>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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


From renata at webfoundation.org  Thu Nov 20 13:47:57 2014
From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:47:57 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
 <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
 <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>
 <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc3zjRqnTgTn-qGfy2+vzVMAyrAD9YkKqnMjMMeu=294cw@mail.gmail.com>

​Dear all,

Happy to clarify my email, if it was not clear enough. I am also including
the maps I did not include in my previous email.

Again, there are no indications of opening and continuing revising the
draft document. If there is a process to reopen the document and improve
it, please indicate it. I know Net Mundial was considered by many a huge
achievement and consensus. For the three reasons I explained before

1. Weak anti surveillance language
2. Inclusion of copyright provisions
3. Lack of South input, from all sectors

I have always considered quite incomplete. If it is an open discussion and
there will be an engaging process to "fix it" then it is a different
conversation.

Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
discussion?

With respect,

Renata​

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought to be no
> limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is formulating
> rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us more about what is silly
> here?
>
>
> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit :
>
> > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles and
> roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"??
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at
> >> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at
> >> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final.
> >> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least,
> >> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments
> >> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed,
> >> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the
> >> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid,
> >> multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such
> >> document, which so far is just the result of an event outside the
> >> regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous and silly,
> >> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important battles
> >> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free societies. A
> >> rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome document will
> >> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights
> standards.
> >>
> >> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work
> >> by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the
> >> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest
> >> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the
> >> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate,
> >> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet
> >> Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions of
> >> privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like Mishi,
> >> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key demands.
> >>
> >> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
> >> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is
> >> flawed and has very little reform or even information potential for
> >> Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting the
> >> adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks
> >> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the most
> >> affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the one
> >> forward and because, again, very few of those who are not represented
> >> will be able to afford the time and resources that such initiative
> >> demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few.
> >>
> >> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has
> >> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we
> >> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
> >>
> >> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
> >> position of the Web Foundation.
> >>
> >> Renata
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> >> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> >> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >>    Jeanette,
> >>
> >>    Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
> >>    importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed
> >>    information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to
> >>    her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the
> >>    reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor?
> >>    WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil society
> >>    engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much more jobs
> >>    that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is
> >>    worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high
> >>    media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in
> >>    Davos, to start with.
> >>
> >>    You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
> >>    totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what
> >>    is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab
> >>    is already elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do
> >>    we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any qualified
> >>    and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement
> >>    and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are
> >>    willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some
> >>    have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few other cool
> >>    places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a
> >>    comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
> >>
> >>    Thanks
> >>    JC
> >>
> >>
> >>    Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> >>
> >>>    Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more
> >>>    principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to
> >>>    communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think
> >>>    the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of
> >>>    qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute
> >>>    on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced
> >>>    people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself,
> >>>    don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those
> >>>    who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
> >>>    Jeanette
> >>>
> >>>    On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter
> >>>    <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
> >>>>    Thanks Nnenna.
> >>>>
> >>>>    Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
> >>>>    opinion.
> >>>>
> >>>>    Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many
> others.
> >>>>    It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
> >>>>    reciprocated.
> >>>>
> >>>>    The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
> >>>>    someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
> >>>>    people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It
> >>>>    would
> >>>>    be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view.
> And
> >>>>    some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
> >>>>
> >>>>    We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can
> >>>>    agree to
> >>>>    respect differences of opinion.
> >>>>
> >>>>    Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to
> building
> >>>>    APC as  “ an international network and non profit organisation that
> >>>>    wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to
> improve
> >>>>    our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not
> >>>>    abandoning the
> >>>>    pursuit of social justice.
> >>>>
> >>>>    Ian Peter
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    From: Nnenna Nwakanma
> >>>>    Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
> >>>>    To: michael gurstein
> >>>>    Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
> >>>>    Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
> >>>>    NETmundial Initiative - RFC
> >>>>
> >>>>    Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze
> me
> >>>>    the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it
> is
> >>>>    not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being
> >>>>    construed as
> >>>>    abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was
> >>>>    Nelson
> >>>>    Mandela.  And it is him who said:
> >>>>    "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with
> >>>>    your
> >>>>    enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    I will rest my case for now
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Nnenna
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein
> >>>>    <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> >>>>    wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>    So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI
> >>>>    offers
> >>>>    some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human
> rights,
> >>>>    you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
> >>>>    social justice.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    M
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> >>>>    <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
> >>>>    [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> >>>>    <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] On Behalf Of
> Anriette
> >>>>    Esterhuysen
> >>>>    Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
> >>>>    To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
> >>>>    Cc: Governance; Best Bits
> >>>>    Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
> >>>>    NETmundial Initiative - RFC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Dear all
> >>>>
> >>>>    I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our
> >>>>    members about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with
> >>>>    project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African
> >>>>    School on
> >>>>    IG, so apologies for not participating.
> >>>>
> >>>>    Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I
> have
> >>>>    also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while
> >>>>    there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving
> the
> >>>>    process a try.
> >>>>
> >>>>    I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was
> excellent,
> >>>>    and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger
> >>>>    position.
> >>>>    I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is
> >>>>    legitimate and clear.
> >>>>
> >>>>    I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently
> >>>>    from how
> >>>>    Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as
> 'black
> >>>>    and white'.
> >>>>
> >>>>    My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
> >>>>    expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late
> >>>>    August have actually been addressed.
> >>>>
> >>>>    I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
> >>>>    transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process
> and
> >>>>    its mechanisms.
> >>>>
> >>>>    But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe
> we
> >>>>    should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental
> >>>>    spaces, at
> >>>>    national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty
> >>>>    naive to
> >>>>    many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to
> inclusive
> >>>>    democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is
> through
> >>>>    closer connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental
> >>>>    processes and mechanisms.
> >>>>
> >>>>    I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
> >>>>
> >>>>    My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with
> the
> >>>>    following:
> >>>>
> >>>>    - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
> >>>>    - a limited timeframe
> >>>>    - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess
> >>>>    whether we
> >>>>    continue or not
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
> >>>>    closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting
> to
> >>>>    get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our
> >>>>    particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to
> >>>>    influence the
> >>>>    process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
> >>>>
> >>>>    This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that
> >>>>    turns
> >>>>    out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth
> >>>>    taking, and
> >>>>    we can always withdraw.
> >>>>
> >>>>    Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
> >>>>    progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect human
> >>>>    rights
> >>>>    inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I
> >>>>    think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved
> >>>>    through the
> >>>>    NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and
> >>>>    implement, internet governance.
> >>>>
> >>>>    Anriette
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>      Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps
> >>>>    shed
> >>>>    some light on why their government has decided to support this
> >>>>    initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very
> >>>>    helpful? I
> >>>>    have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and
> can't
> >>>>    help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in
> >>>>    favour
> >>>>    of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval
> (though
> >>>>    as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual
> organisations
> >>>>    who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the
> >>>>    wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the
> >>>>    Brazilian
> >>>>    government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new
> power
> >>>>    centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already
> >>>>    given
> >>>>    themselves some fixed seats.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
> >>>>    means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster"
> >>>>    clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many
> >>>>    others
> >>>>    on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance
> >>>>    Lab at
> >>>>    NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that
> >>>>    would
> >>>>    be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to
> >>>>    feel like
> >>>>    the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to
> rubberstamp
> >>>>    things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them,
> >>>>    somehow the
> >>>>    structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy
> >>>>    that
> >>>>    they would not have had without. An unwise use of our power, I
> would
> >>>>    say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is something that a
> >>>>    representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an informal
> >>>>    conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative, such as
> >>>>    that map, might have value, but about the structure as a whole, I
> am
> >>>>    not so certain)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start
> exploring
> >>>>    the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by
> >>>>    Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
> >>>>    thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take
> it
> >>>>    forward.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>      Thanks and best,
> >>>>
> >>>>      Anja
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com
> >>>>    <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>    Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
> >>>>    Society members here.
> >>>>
> >>>>    My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
> >>>>    table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be
> >>>>    withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
> >>>>
> >>>>    I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in
> Africa, I
> >>>>    dont think we should miss out.
> >>>>
> >>>>    NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to
> >>>>    participate.
> >>>>    From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already
> very
> >>>>    interested in the NMI.
> >>>>
> >>>>    I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT
> to
> >>>>    participate but we cannot ask others not to.
> >>>>
> >>>>    Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people.
> >>>>    And at
> >>>>    the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
> >>>>    participate.
> >>>>
> >>>>      All for now
> >>>>
> >>>>      Nnenna
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
> Global
> >>>>    Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> >>>>    <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>        Jeremy,
> >>>>
> >>>>        Thanks for your email.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we
> >>>>    both do
> >>>>    not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
> >>>>    terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
> >>>>    politics.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better
> effect
> >>>>    and impact.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
> >>>>    participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set
> of
> >>>>    definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It
> >>>>    looks
> >>>>    more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of
> a
> >>>>    wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and
> >>>>    friends
> >>>>    with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious
> >>>>    tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a
> consultant
> >>>>    for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the
> partition
> >>>>    behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always call
> some
> >>>>    troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross
> a
> >>>>    street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what is at
> stake
> >>>>    such as
> >>>>
> >>>>    - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
> >>>>    refused to discuss mass surveillance?
> >>>>
> >>>>    - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep
> maturing
> >>>>    and growing?
> >>>>
> >>>>    - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
> >>>>    insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption
> >>>>    part of
> >>>>    the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
> >>>>    Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
> >>>>    surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
> >>>>
> >>>>    - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the
> EU
> >>>>    decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my
> >>>>    view, that
> >>>>    search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple
> links
> >>>>    they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate
> for
> >>>>    CS.
> >>>>
> >>>>    - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More
> important
> >>>>    than IANA for example?
> >>>>
> >>>>    - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
> >>>>    comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is
> >>>>    saying
> >>>>    the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help
> >>>>    ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at
> all
> >>>>    the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with
> >>>>    their
> >>>>    innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They
> >>>>    also create more "values".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
> >>>>    Nevertheless,
> >>>>    CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the
> >>>>    weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to
> blame
> >>>>    JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS
> in a
> >>>>    satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
> >>>>    their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply
> >>>>    get it
> >>>>    not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go
> >>>>    directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
> >>>>    launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
> >>>>    creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
> >>>>    boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all
> >>>>    cry. We
> >>>>    are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
> >>>>    debate
> >>>>    and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
> >>>>    corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing
> >>>>    asymmetry we
> >>>>    live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our
> >>>>    fellow
> >>>>    citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you
> do
> >>>>    not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the
> >>>>    realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be
> >>>>    done,
> >>>>    now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about
> the
> >>>>    comfortable sofas of the WEF.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own
> mandate.
> >>>>    JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more
> and
> >>>>    more people. We should not care about that. We should care about
> >>>>    having
> >>>>    a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the
> >>>>    current mandarins to take more progressive steps.
> Multistakeholderism
> >>>>    when it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly
> >>>>    nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put in our
> >>>>    mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least
> >>>>    on the
> >>>>    public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to
> go
> >>>>    through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone nowhere.
> >>>>    Only
> >>>>    a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical issues
> doesn't
> >>>>    equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead
> >>>>    to some
> >>>>    social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough,
> >>>>    our bias
> >>>>    is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation,
> no
> >>>>    barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic
> >>>>    concern (to
> >>>>    avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into
> >>>>    rationales
> >>>>    as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
> >>>>    society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all
> >>>>    agree that
> >>>>    we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not
> have
> >>>>    hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the
> >>>>    debate. That would be fair.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        JC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> >>>>    Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> >>>>    <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email.
> >>>>    On a
> >>>>    personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the
> "dumping
> >>>>    on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post
> >>>>    about
> >>>>    this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org>, because JNC’s
> >>>>    pathologies are off-topic for this
> >>>>    list.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do
> listen
> >>>>    to non JNC members:
> >>>>
> >>>>    - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
> >>>>    Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world".
> >>>>    (Ask Drew
> >>>>    Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the
> WIB
> >>>>    Initiative)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
> >>>>    quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ...
> Fadi
> >>>>    Chehadé: ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    None of these statements support the characterisation of the
> >>>>    Initiative
> >>>>    as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global [Internet]
> >>>>    governance”.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
> >>>>    statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance
> to
> >>>>    participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to
> >>>>    blunt)
> >>>>    of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners
> of
> >>>>    what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by
> >>>>    different participants.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial
> Initiative
> >>>>    (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the
> NETmundial
> >>>>    meeting. On this much we agree.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
> >>>>    should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious
> concerns
> >>>>    seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by
> the
> >>>>    WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally
> I
> >>>>    certainly have
> >>>>    (
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles
> ).
> >>>>    What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
> >>>>    Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
> >>>>    other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
> >>>>    endorsement of the Initiative.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant
> >>>>    which was
> >>>>    sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received,
> off
> >>>>    list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits
> list):
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
> >>>>    because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
> >>>>    flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just
> >>>>    because
> >>>>    you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m
> not.
> >>>>    Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions
> >>>>    rather than
> >>>>    me monopolising the conversation.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        --
> >>>>
> >>>>        Jeremy Malcolm
> >>>>
> >>>>        Senior Global Policy Analyst
> >>>>
> >>>>        Electronic Frontier Foundation
> >>>>
> >>>>    https://eff.org
> >>>>    jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >>>>      To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>      --
> >>>>
> >>>>      Dr. Anja Kovacs
> >>>>      The Internet Democracy Project
> >>>>
> >>>>    +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
> >>>>    www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    ____________________________________________________________You
> >>>>    received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
> >>>>    <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To> unsubscribe or change
> >>>>    your settings,
> >>>>    visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive
> >>>>    directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
> >>>>    melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
> >>>>    <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>    ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>
> >>>    --
> >>>    Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>>
> >>>    ____________________________________________________________
> >>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >
> >>>    To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>>    For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>    To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>>    Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >>    ____________________________________________________________
> >>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
> >>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Renata Avila *
> >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
> >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
> >> +44 7477168593 (UK)
> >>
> >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org*
> >> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>


-- 
*Renata Avila *
Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
+44 7477168593 (UK)

*World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* |
Twitter: @webfoundation*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/341f77e3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2014-11-20 at 06.36.56.png
Type: image/png
Size: 125256 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/341f77e3/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2014-11-20 at 06.37.30.png
Type: image/png
Size: 132475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/341f77e3/attachment-0001.png>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Nov  1 14:22:50 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:22:50 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24
 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations
In-Reply-To: <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au>
References: <CAFwCmbGye0uz86edkpTzCw_dFm3FbcovCnv4QTj6JzgV0T1XzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill>	<CAFwCmbHTXov4uhdjji0d56O3VM8V+tjWiKL2yDv2oM_em8k0Vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com>	<CACAaNxiJighdPkhHs16Re+Tfw=7h=_DxKarrBm3u9S25ZfmMZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com>	<5449583C.7050500@acm.org>
 <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com>	<CAHyAo0GcbPjdqU6xgWfCJkR0N5T5gPJYX8zRSP+jry++2Jt+FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com>	<CA+4KnA88-j4c5LK0+Ni1m4ft-jEAgaua2j13eL0d4Vaj75TPwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com>	<CA+4KnA92=z0DCM2GAGe2emzNTpw4dZ=iPx6EfJ4hV_ayU91Wgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com>	<CAMz5XN52tOv+Kym68Wc-9LdxPudmqWM=WWc7aeSY+fmtfda+FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org>	<03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com>
 <544A96BD.40204@eff.org>	<040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com>
 <CAHyAo0HGfD5s2SqG2nrx_2mBFcdrUJz70r167e qznnfdDk0vBQ@ m ail.gmail.com>
 <BCAF6729-8D33-4776-805C-5D32376BF977@post.harvard.edu> <CAHyAo0HRoi2=-kWg9SQqho+uq9aLPbDZ=e-rmuvv_OVwyTs++g@mail.gmail.com>
 <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <29a601cff600$d901a3f0$8b04ebd0$@gmail.com>

As a matter of fact I do think that democratic decision making processes should take into account the outcome of MS (and other) consultations but should ultimately decide matters of public policy on the basis of the broad public interest.

 

Don’t you agree?

 

M

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:33 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

 

 

On 25 Oct 2014, at 5:43 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:





The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion).  This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on.

 

            So, if there has been a broad multi-stakeholder process, that includes civil society, government, representatives of minorities etc that has achieved consensus between all of them - you think a policy that was strongly disagreed with by civil society, business, many minority groups, should be overruled if a simple majority of elected representatives vote for it?

            (setting aside the practical issues of creating a transnational group of elected representatives etc just for the moment)

 

Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding.

 

            But, of course, any decision making that only includes the foxes would not be multi-stakeholder. 

 

            Remember the old joke about democracy being two foxes and a chicken voting on lunch. It is far more difficult to get consensus from the chicken. 

 

            Cheers

 

                        David





 

The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM
To: David Allen
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

 

Dear David Allen,

 

It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day  to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model.

 

There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve.

 

Sivasubramanian M




 <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> Sivasubramanian M

+1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014

 

 

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen < <mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:

Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices.  Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ...

 

But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ...   Hmmm ...

 

In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box.  And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it?  And arrange to get everyone there?  So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak?

 

Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'?  So ceding power to the powerful?

 

David

 

 

On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M < <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:






It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. 

 

The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. 




 <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> Sivasubramanian M

 

 

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”

 

​

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
      <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> 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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/e65ff85d/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Nov 20 13:56:43 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc3zjRqnTgTn-qGfy2+vzVMAyrAD9YkKqnMjMMeu=294cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net> <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com> <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <CAOa=Yc3zjRqnTgTn-qGfy2+vzVMAyrAD9YkKqnMjMMeu=294cw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca>

 > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
 > discussion?

With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 11/20/14 16:47, Renata Avila wrote:
> ​Dear all,
>
> Happy to clarify my email, if it was not clear enough. I am also
> including the maps I did not include in my previous email.
>
> Again, there are no indications of opening and continuing revising the
> draft document. If there is a process to reopen the document and improve
> it, please indicate it. I know Net Mundial was considered by many a huge
> achievement and consensus. For the three reasons I explained before
>
> 1. Weak anti surveillance language
> 2. Inclusion of copyright provisions
> 3. Lack of South input, from all sectors
>
> I have always considered quite incomplete. If it is an open discussion
> and there will be an engaging process to "fix it" then it is a different
> conversation.
>
> Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
> discussion?
>
> With respect,
>
> Renata​
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>     Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought to
>     be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is
>     formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us more
>     about what is silly here?
>
>
>     Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit :
>
>      > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles
>     and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"??
>      >
>      > --c.a.
>      >
>      > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote:
>      >> Dear all,
>      >>
>      >> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear
>     earlier at
>      >> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really
>     concerned at
>      >> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as
>     final.
>      >> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at
>     least,
>      >> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of
>     governments
>      >> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was
>     flawed,
>      >> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the
>     introduction the
>      >> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid,
>      >> multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such
>      >> document, which so far is just the result of an event outside the
>      >> regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous
>     and silly,
>      >> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important
>     battles
>      >> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free societies. A
>      >> rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome
>     document will
>      >> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights
>     standards.
>      >>
>      >> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the
>     brilliant work
>      >> by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html
>     and the
>      >> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the
>     poorest
>      >> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing
>     in the
>      >> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised
>     debate,
>      >> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet
>      >> Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions of
>      >> privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like
>     Mishi,
>      >> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key
>     demands.
>      >>
>      >> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any
>     effort that
>      >> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is
>      >> flawed and has very little reform or even information potential for
>      >> Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting the
>      >> adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole
>     exercise lacks
>      >> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the most
>      >> affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the one
>      >> forward and because, again, very few of those who are not
>     represented
>      >> will be able to afford the time and resources that such initiative
>      >> demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few.
>      >>
>      >> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that
>     issue has
>      >> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the
>     legitimacy we
>      >> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a
>     new low.
>      >>
>      >> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
>      >> position of the Web Foundation.
>      >>
>      >> Renata
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>     Global
>      >> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>      >> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>>> wrote:
>      >>
>      >>    Jeanette,
>      >>
>      >>    Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed,
>     more
>      >>    importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed
>      >>    information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to
>      >>    her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the
>      >>    reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant
>     actor?
>      >>    WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil
>     society
>      >>    engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much
>     more jobs
>      >>    that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is
>      >>    worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high
>      >>    media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in
>      >>    Davos, to start with.
>      >>
>      >>    You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine,
>     but you
>      >>    totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us:
>     what
>      >>    is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if
>     NUY lab
>      >>    is already elaborating the written conclusions of the
>     initiative, do
>      >>    we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any
>     qualified
>      >>    and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your
>     judgement
>      >>    and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are
>      >>    willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some
>      >>    have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few
>     other cool
>      >>    places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a
>      >>    comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
>      >>
>      >>    Thanks
>      >>    JC
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>    Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>      >>
>      >>>    Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more
>      >>>    principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to
>      >>>    communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I
>     think
>      >>>    the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of
>      >>>    qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to
>     contribute
>      >>>    on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced
>      >>>    people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in
>     itself,
>      >>>    don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those
>      >>>    who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
>      >>>    Jeanette
>      >>>
>      >>>    On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter
>      >>>    <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>     <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>> wrote:
>      >>>>    Thanks Nnenna.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>      >>>>    opinion.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have
>     many others.
>      >>>>    It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>      >>>>    reciprocated.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    The most substantial side effect for civil society
>     discourse when
>      >>>>    someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected
>     is that
>      >>>>    people stop expressing themselves for fear of being
>     attacked. It
>      >>>>    would
>      >>>>    be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of
>     view. And
>      >>>>    some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can
>      >>>>    agree to
>      >>>>    respect differences of opinion.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to
>     building
>      >>>>    APC as  “ an international network and non profit
>     organisation that
>      >>>>    wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet
>     to improve
>      >>>>    our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not
>      >>>>    abandoning the
>      >>>>    pursuit of social justice.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Ian Peter
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>      >>>>    Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>      >>>>    To: michael gurstein
>      >>>>    Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
>      >>>>    Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>      >>>>    NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning
>     to amaze me
>      >>>>    the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a
>     shot, it is
>      >>>>    not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being
>      >>>>    construed as
>      >>>>    abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    If there was a human being who fought for social justice,
>     it was
>      >>>>    Nelson
>      >>>>    Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>      >>>>    "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to
>     work with
>      >>>>    your
>      >>>>    enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I will rest my case for now
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Nnenna
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein
>      >>>>    <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>     <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>>
>      >>>>    wrote:
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI
>      >>>>    offers
>      >>>>    some possibility, however remote for the advancement of
>     human rights,
>      >>>>    you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the
>     pursuit of
>      >>>>    social justice.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    M
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>      >>>>    <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>>
>      >>>>    [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>      >>>>    <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>>] On Behalf Of Anriette
>      >>>>    Esterhuysen
>      >>>>    Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>      >>>>    To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>      >>>>    Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>      >>>>    Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>      >>>>    NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Dear all
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is
>     consulting our
>      >>>>    members about it at present. We have been really busy in
>     APC with
>      >>>>    project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African
>      >>>>    School on
>      >>>>    IG, so apologies for not participating.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian
>     colleagues. I have
>      >>>>    also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense
>     that while
>      >>>>    there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth
>     giving the
>      >>>>    process a try.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was
>     excellent,
>      >>>>    and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger
>      >>>>    position.
>      >>>>    I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the
>     process is
>      >>>>    legitimate and clear.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently
>      >>>>    from how
>      >>>>    Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite
>     as 'black
>      >>>>    and white'.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we
>      >>>>    expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch
>     in late
>      >>>>    August have actually been addressed.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked
>     more
>      >>>>    transparency and consultation around the redesign of the
>     process and
>      >>>>    its mechanisms.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I
>     believe we
>      >>>>    should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental
>      >>>>    spaces, at
>      >>>>    national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty
>      >>>>    naive to
>      >>>>    many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to
>     inclusive
>      >>>>    democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation
>     is through
>      >>>>    closer connections between multistakeholder and
>     intergovernmental
>      >>>>    processes and mechanisms.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI
>     with the
>      >>>>    following:
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>      >>>>    - a limited timeframe
>      >>>>    - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess
>      >>>>    whether we
>      >>>>    continue or not
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to
>     link it
>      >>>>    closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits
>     meeting to
>      >>>>    get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess
>     whether our
>      >>>>    particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to
>      >>>>    influence the
>      >>>>    process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process
>     that
>      >>>>    turns
>      >>>>    out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth
>      >>>>    taking, and
>      >>>>    we can always withdraw.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>      >>>>    progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect
>     human
>      >>>>    rights
>      >>>>    inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling
>     out.  I
>      >>>>    think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved
>      >>>>    through the
>      >>>>    NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think
>     about, and
>      >>>>    implement, internet governance.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Anriette
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>      >>>>
>      >>>>      Dear all,
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could
>     perhaps
>      >>>>    shed
>      >>>>    some light on why their government has decided to support this
>      >>>>    initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very
>      >>>>    helpful? I
>      >>>>    have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past,
>     and can't
>      >>>>    help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in
>      >>>>    favour
>      >>>>    of civil society networks giving this their stamp of
>     approval (though
>      >>>>    as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual
>     organisations
>      >>>>    who want to participate to continue doing so and report
>     back to the
>      >>>>    wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the
>      >>>>    Brazilian
>      >>>>    government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a
>     new power
>      >>>>    centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have
>     already
>      >>>>    given
>      >>>>    themselves some fixed seats.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I've in particular been wondering what this selection and
>     committee
>      >>>>    means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would
>     "foster"
>      >>>>    clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many
>      >>>>    others
>      >>>>    on this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance
>      >>>>    Lab at
>      >>>>    NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map
>     that
>      >>>>    would
>      >>>>    be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to
>      >>>>    feel like
>      >>>>    the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to
>     rubberstamp
>      >>>>    things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them,
>      >>>>    somehow the
>      >>>>    structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a
>     legitimacy
>      >>>>    that
>      >>>>    they would not have had without. An unwise use of our
>     power, I would
>      >>>>    say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is
>     something that a
>      >>>>    representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an
>     informal
>      >>>>    conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative,
>     such as
>      >>>>    that map, might have value, but about the structure as a
>     whole, I am
>      >>>>    not so certain)
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start
>     exploring
>      >>>>    the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work
>     suggested by
>      >>>>    Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what they're
>      >>>>    thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves
>     and take it
>      >>>>    forward.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>      Thanks and best,
>      >>>>
>      >>>>      Anja
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma
>     <nnenna75 at gmail.com <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>
>      >>>>    <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially
>     African Civil
>      >>>>    Society members here.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is
>     okay to
>      >>>>    table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation
>     may be
>      >>>>    withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in
>     Africa, I
>      >>>>    dont think we should miss out.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to
>      >>>>    participate.
>      >>>>    From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were
>     already very
>      >>>>    interested in the NMI.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform
>     decides NOT to
>      >>>>    participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating
>     people.
>      >>>>    And at
>      >>>>    the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>      >>>>    participate.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>      All for now
>      >>>>
>      >>>>      Nnenna
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I
>     The Global
>      >>>>    Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>      >>>>    <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>>> wrote:
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        Jeremy,
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        Thanks for your email.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we
>      >>>>    both do
>      >>>>    not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be
>     wise to
>      >>>>    terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
>      >>>>    politics.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of
>     better effect
>      >>>>    and impact.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>      >>>>    participants is that the initiative has more than a
>     troubling set of
>      >>>>    definitions, expectations and leading to an overall
>     confusion. It
>      >>>>    looks
>      >>>>    more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate
>     grouping of a
>      >>>>    wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and
>      >>>>    friends
>      >>>>    with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the
>     obvious
>      >>>>    tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a
>     consultant
>      >>>>    for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the
>     partition
>      >>>>    behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always
>     call some
>      >>>>    troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke
>     to cross a
>      >>>>    street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what
>     is at stake
>      >>>>    such as
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that
>     the US
>      >>>>    refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep
>     maturing
>      >>>>    and growing?
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>      >>>>    insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption
>      >>>>    part of
>      >>>>    the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US,
>     in Sao
>      >>>>    Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>      >>>>    surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour
>     against the EU
>      >>>>    decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my
>      >>>>    view, that
>      >>>>    search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the
>     simple links
>      >>>>    they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good
>     debate for
>      >>>>    CS.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More
>     important
>      >>>>    than IANA for example?
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas
>     when it
>      >>>>    comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is
>      >>>>    saying
>      >>>>    the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can
>     we help
>      >>>>    ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds?
>     Looking at all
>      >>>>    the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively
>     impressed with
>      >>>>    their
>      >>>>    innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical
>     corps. They
>      >>>>    also create more "values".
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>      >>>>    Nevertheless,
>      >>>>    CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant
>     of the
>      >>>>    weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not
>     to blame
>      >>>>    JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN
>     handle CS in a
>      >>>>    satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had
>     to twist
>      >>>>    their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to
>     simply
>      >>>>    get it
>      >>>>    not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys"
>     not to go
>      >>>>    directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
>      >>>>    launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they
>     keep
>      >>>>    creating distrust with their committees, high level panel,
>     advisory
>      >>>>    boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all
>      >>>>    cry. We
>      >>>>    are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
>      >>>>    debate
>      >>>>    and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments,
>     citizens and
>      >>>>    corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing
>      >>>>    asymmetry we
>      >>>>    live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our
>      >>>>    fellow
>      >>>>    citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do
>     that you do
>      >>>>    not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and
>     confront the
>      >>>>    realities that are taking away our rights. This is what
>     should be
>      >>>>    done,
>      >>>>    now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate
>     about the
>      >>>>    comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own
>     mandate.
>      >>>>    JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and
>     reaching more and
>      >>>>    more people. We should not care about that. We should care
>     about
>      >>>>    having
>      >>>>    a collective action that would oblige governments, corps
>     and the
>      >>>>    current mandarins to take more progressive steps.
>     Multistakeholderism
>      >>>>    when it comes to convene and consult many participants is
>     certainly
>      >>>>    nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put
>     in our
>      >>>>    mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at
>     least
>      >>>>    on the
>      >>>>    public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders
>     had to go
>      >>>>    through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone
>     nowhere.
>      >>>>    Only
>      >>>>    a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical
>     issues doesn't
>      >>>>    equate a political model. It could work, but then it would lead
>      >>>>    to some
>      >>>>    social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough,
>      >>>>    our bias
>      >>>>    is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no
>     corporation, no
>      >>>>    barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic
>      >>>>    concern (to
>      >>>>    avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into
>      >>>>    rationales
>      >>>>    as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as
>     civil
>      >>>>    society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all
>      >>>>    agree that
>      >>>>    we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do
>     not have
>      >>>>    hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money
>     in the
>      >>>>    debate. That would be fair.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        JC
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>     Global
>      >>>>    Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>      >>>>    <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>>> wrote:
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first
>     email.
>      >>>>    On a
>      >>>>    personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about
>     the "dumping
>      >>>>    on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog
>     post
>      >>>>    about
>      >>>>    this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org>
>     <http://igfwatch.org>, because JNC’s
>      >>>>    pathologies are off-topic for this
>      >>>>    list.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I
>     do listen
>      >>>>    to non JNC members:
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>      >>>>    Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world".
>      >>>>    (Ask Drew
>      >>>>    Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what
>     is the WIB
>      >>>>    Initiative)
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>      >>>>    quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans,
>     ... Fadi
>      >>>>    Chehadé: ...
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>      >>>>    Initiative
>      >>>>    as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global
>     [Internet]
>      >>>>    governance”.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Based on these official and public statement, I can only
>     read JNC
>      >>>>    statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC
>     reluctance to
>      >>>>    participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to
>      >>>>    blunt)
>      >>>>    of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are
>     owners of
>      >>>>    what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due
>     reserves by
>      >>>>    different participants.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial
>     Initiative
>      >>>>    (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the
>     NETmundial
>      >>>>    meeting. On this much we agree.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that
>     convoy ...
>      >>>>    should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious
>     concerns
>      >>>>    seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives
>     presented by the
>      >>>>    WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part
>     personally I
>      >>>>    certainly have
>      >>>>
>     (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>      >>>>    What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the
>     NETmundial
>      >>>>    Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the
>     motives of
>      >>>>    other civil society groups and falsely attributing them
>     with their
>      >>>>    endorsement of the Initiative.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant
>      >>>>    which was
>      >>>>    sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently
>     received, off
>      >>>>    list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>     By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the
>     BestBits list):
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail
>     right now
>      >>>>    because I am speaking at a conference today and will be
>     boarding a
>      >>>>    flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response just
>      >>>>    because
>      >>>>    you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you -
>     I’m not.
>      >>>>    Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions
>      >>>>    rather than
>      >>>>    me monopolising the conversation.
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        --
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        Jeremy Malcolm
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        Senior Global Policy Analyst
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        Electronic Frontier Foundation
>      >>>>
>      >>>> https://eff.org
>      >>>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>     <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>        :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>      >>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>.
>      >>>>      To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>      --
>      >>>>
>      >>>>      Dr. Anja Kovacs
>      >>>>      The Internet Democracy Project
>      >>>>
>      >>>> +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053>
>     <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>      >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>     <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    ____________________________________________________________You
>      >>>>    received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To>
>      >>>>    <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To>> unsubscribe or change
>      >>>>    your settings,
>      >>>>    visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    -- `````````````````````````````````anriette
>     esterhuysenexecutive
>      >>>>    directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>      >>>>    melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>     <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>
>      >>>>    <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>     <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>      >>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>.
>      >>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>      >>>
>      >>>    --
>      >>>    Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my
>     brevity.
>      >>>
>      >>>    ____________________________________________________________
>      >>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>      >>>    To be removed from the list, visit:
>      >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>      >>>
>      >>>    For all other list information and functions, see:
>      >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>      >>>    To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>      >>>
>      >>>    Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>    ____________________________________________________________
>      >>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>.
>      >>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> --
>      >> *Renata Avila *
>      >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
>      >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
>      >> +44 7477168593 <tel:%2B44%207477168593> (UK)
>      >>
>      >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>     Washington
>      >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org
>     <http://www.webfoundation.org>*
>      >> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> ____________________________________________________________
>      >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>      > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Renata Avila *
> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
> +44 7477168593 (UK)
>
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org*
> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

From renata at webfoundation.org  Thu Nov 20 13:58:32 2014
From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:58:32 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial
 Initiative - RFC
In-Reply-To: <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca>
References: <CABDC456-5C4E-4642-80B5-7F2FDC37C3D9@eff.org> <CE9BDEE6-6A93-4BDF-B427-7BCEC141BD2D@theglobaljournal.net>
 <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CADFgh12b2+3LYt0hP9ofuqUz=ptbdNPSdrG7Y-TFJA_tQQf1SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHC5ngUU9pgZevBHn3C92LhOU8kBbCcs7yTvE=g7iWJaFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com>
 <CADFgh12Z0jNgzx+=uA1fPp5w-1VNCq-3wJ5_Q8g_fMnnizpROA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AC2C90C5F5F243BB8124F9232F49AE73@Toshiba> <E8C56CBC-E1A1-4DB3-AD70-3E46B604985C@wzb.eu>
 <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAOa=Yc0D0LraFEKy-6bi_a2jnfkigp9X1aeCbRy6NVJGska-GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAOa=Yc3zjRqnTgTn-qGfy2+vzVMAyrAD9YkKqnMjMMeu=294cw@mail.gmail.com> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc1gRrDj3FBsF8XkU0+JGaaMH9D0nNFWBVX=vciihtHjEA@mail.gmail.com>

Same concerns remain.

Thank you for such clarification, in any case.

R

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
> > discussion?
>
> With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/20/14 16:47, Renata Avila wrote:
>
>> ​Dear all,
>>
>> Happy to clarify my email, if it was not clear enough. I am also
>> including the maps I did not include in my previous email.
>>
>> Again, there are no indications of opening and continuing revising the
>> draft document. If there is a process to reopen the document and improve
>> it, please indicate it. I know Net Mundial was considered by many a huge
>> achievement and consensus. For the three reasons I explained before
>>
>> 1. Weak anti surveillance language
>> 2. Inclusion of copyright provisions
>> 3. Lack of South input, from all sectors
>>
>> I have always considered quite incomplete. If it is an open discussion
>> and there will be an engaging process to "fix it" then it is a different
>> conversation.
>>
>> Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
>> discussion?
>>
>> With respect,
>>
>> Renata​
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought to
>>     be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is
>>     formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us more
>>     about what is silly here?
>>
>>
>>     Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit :
>>
>>      > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles
>>     and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"??
>>      >
>>      > --c.a.
>>      >
>>      > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila wrote:
>>      >> Dear all,
>>      >>
>>      >> I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear
>>     earlier at
>>      >> the closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really
>>     concerned at
>>      >> any effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as
>>     final.
>>      >> Mrs. Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at
>>     least,
>>      >> somehow, regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of
>>     governments
>>      >> against all citizens. The result was a monster, the process was
>>     flawed,
>>      >> the language against massive surveillance was weak, the
>>     introduction the
>>      >> language to please the copyright lobby really undermined solid,
>>      >> multiyear efforts of the copyright reformists, too. Adopting such
>>      >> document, which so far is just the result of an event outside the
>>      >> regular events around Internet Governance is simply dangerous
>>     and silly,
>>      >> because in no way is a big victory for two of the most important
>>     battles
>>      >> for the future of our knowledge societies, of our free societies.
>> A
>>      >> rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the outcome
>>     document will
>>      >> show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human rights
>>     standards.
>>      >>
>>      >> The other issue was participation. As you can see in the
>>     brilliant work
>>      >> by CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html
>>     and the
>>      >> attached maps, the voices from the global south, especially the
>>     poorest
>>      >> countries from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing
>>     in the
>>      >> debates. It was a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised
>>     debate,
>>      >> but, paradoxically, with terrible flaws as there were Internet
>>      >> Governance experts, but, except for the very good contributions of
>>      >> privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum and Copyright experts like
>>     Mishi,
>>      >> there was a vast lack of expertise, or at least no unity in key
>>     demands.
>>      >>
>>      >> So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any
>>     effort that
>>      >> will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final,
>> is
>>      >> flawed and has very little reform or even information potential
>> for
>>      >> Civil Society. Because we will not be asking for and promoting the
>>      >> adoption of higher but lower standards, because the whole
>>     exercise lacks
>>      >> the voices and concerns for the very actors which will be the most
>>      >> affected by the adoption of such principles and roadmap as the one
>>      >> forward and because, again, very few of those who are not
>>     represented
>>      >> will be able to afford the time and resources that such initiative
>>      >> demands. So it will be again, a conversation among few.
>>      >>
>>      >> There is also the public v. private interest here, but that
>>     issue has
>>      >> been discussed extensively. My concern is basically the
>>     legitimacy we
>>      >> are giving to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a
>>     new low.
>>      >>
>>      >> * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
>>      >> position of the Web Foundation.
>>      >>
>>      >> Renata
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>>     Global
>>      >> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>>      >> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>
>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>>> wrote:
>>      >>
>>      >>    Jeanette,
>>      >>
>>      >>    Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed,
>>     more
>>      >>    importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed
>>      >>    information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers
>> to
>>      >>    her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the
>>      >>    reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant
>>     actor?
>>      >>    WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil
>>     society
>>      >>    engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much
>>     more jobs
>>      >>    that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is
>>      >>    worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high
>>      >>    media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in
>>      >>    Davos, to start with.
>>      >>
>>      >>    You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine,
>>     but you
>>      >>    totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us:
>>     what
>>      >>    is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if
>>     NUY lab
>>      >>    is already elaborating the written conclusions of the
>>     initiative, do
>>      >>    we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any
>>     qualified
>>      >>    and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your
>>     judgement
>>      >>    and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are
>>      >>    willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes.
>> Some
>>      >>    have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few
>>     other cool
>>      >>    places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a
>>      >>    comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
>>      >>
>>      >>    Thanks
>>      >>    JC
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>    Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>      >>
>>      >>>    Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more
>>      >>>    principled stance on participating in new processes. We need
>> to
>>      >>>    communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I
>>     think
>>      >>>    the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of
>>      >>>    qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to
>>     contribute
>>      >>>    on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced
>>      >>>    people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in
>>     itself,
>>      >>>    don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that
>> those
>>      >>>    who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
>>      >>>    Jeanette
>>      >>>
>>      >>>    On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter
>>      >>>    <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>     <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>>
>> wrote:
>>      >>>>    Thanks Nnenna.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences
>> of
>>      >>>>    opinion.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have
>>     many others.
>>      >>>>    It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>>      >>>>    reciprocated.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    The most substantial side effect for civil society
>>     discourse when
>>      >>>>    someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected
>>     is that
>>      >>>>    people stop expressing themselves for fear of being
>>     attacked. It
>>      >>>>    would
>>      >>>>    be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of
>>     view. And
>>      >>>>    some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can
>>      >>>>    agree to
>>      >>>>    respect differences of opinion.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to
>>     building
>>      >>>>    APC as  “ an international network and non profit
>>     organisation that
>>      >>>>    wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet
>>     to improve
>>      >>>>    our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not
>>      >>>>    abandoning the
>>      >>>>    pursuit of social justice.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Ian Peter
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    From: Nnenna Nwakanma
>>      >>>>    Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>>      >>>>    To: michael gurstein
>>      >>>>    Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best
>> Bits
>>      >>>>    Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate
>> in
>>      >>>>    NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning
>>     to amaze me
>>      >>>>    the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a
>>     shot, it is
>>      >>>>    not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being
>>      >>>>    construed as
>>      >>>>    abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    If there was a human being who fought for social justice,
>>     it was
>>      >>>>    Nelson
>>      >>>>    Mandela.  And it is him who said:
>>      >>>>    "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to
>>     work with
>>      >>>>    your
>>      >>>>    enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I will rest my case for now
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Nnenna
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein
>>      >>>>    <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>>     <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>>
>>      >>>>    wrote:
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the
>> NMI
>>      >>>>    offers
>>      >>>>    some possibility, however remote for the advancement of
>>     human rights,
>>      >>>>    you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the
>>     pursuit of
>>      >>>>    social justice.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    M
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>      >>>>    <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>>
>>      >>>>    [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>
>>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>      >>>>    <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>>] On Behalf Of Anriette
>>      >>>>    Esterhuysen
>>      >>>>    Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
>>      >>>>    To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
>>      >>>>    Cc: Governance; Best Bits
>>      >>>>    Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate
>> in
>>      >>>>    NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Dear all
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is
>>     consulting our
>>      >>>>    members about it at present. We have been really busy in
>>     APC with
>>      >>>>    project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also the African
>>      >>>>    School on
>>      >>>>    IG, so apologies for not participating.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian
>>     colleagues. I have
>>      >>>>    also asked people off list and thus far I get the sense
>>     that while
>>      >>>>    there are concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth
>>     giving the
>>      >>>>    process a try.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was
>>     excellent,
>>      >>>>    and I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger
>>      >>>>    position.
>>      >>>>    I also feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the
>>     process is
>>      >>>>    legitimate and clear.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently
>>      >>>>    from how
>>      >>>>    Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite
>>     as 'black
>>      >>>>    and white'.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns
>> we
>>      >>>>    expressed at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch
>>     in late
>>      >>>>    August have actually been addressed.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked
>>     more
>>      >>>>    transparency and consultation around the redesign of the
>>     process and
>>      >>>>    its mechanisms.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I
>>     believe we
>>      >>>>    should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental
>>      >>>>    spaces, at
>>      >>>>    national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty
>>      >>>>    naive to
>>      >>>>    many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to
>>     inclusive
>>      >>>>    democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation
>>     is through
>>      >>>>    closer connections between multistakeholder and
>>     intergovernmental
>>      >>>>    processes and mechanisms.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI
>>     with the
>>      >>>>    following:
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>>      >>>>    - a limited timeframe
>>      >>>>    - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess
>>      >>>>    whether we
>>      >>>>    continue or not
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to
>>     link it
>>      >>>>    closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits
>>     meeting to
>>      >>>>    get together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess
>>     whether our
>>      >>>>    particpation has had impact, whether we have been able to
>>      >>>>    influence the
>>      >>>>    process and whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process
>>     that
>>      >>>>    turns
>>      >>>>    out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth
>>      >>>>    taking, and
>>      >>>>    we can always withdraw.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most
>>      >>>>    progressive, to date, agreement on principles that respect
>>     human
>>      >>>>    rights
>>      >>>>    inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling
>>     out.  I
>>      >>>>    think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved
>>      >>>>    through the
>>      >>>>    NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think
>>     about, and
>>      >>>>    implement, internet governance.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Anriette
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>      Dear all,
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could
>>     perhaps
>>      >>>>    shed
>>      >>>>    some light on why their government has decided to support
>> this
>>      >>>>    initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very
>>      >>>>    helpful? I
>>      >>>>    have had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past,
>>     and can't
>>      >>>>    help but wonder whether I'm missing something here.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not
>> in
>>      >>>>    favour
>>      >>>>    of civil society networks giving this their stamp of
>>     approval (though
>>      >>>>    as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual
>>     organisations
>>      >>>>    who want to participate to continue doing so and report
>>     back to the
>>      >>>>    wider community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the
>>      >>>>    Brazilian
>>      >>>>    government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a
>>     new power
>>      >>>>    centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have
>>     already
>>      >>>>    given
>>      >>>>    themselves some fixed seats.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I've in particular been wondering what this selection and
>>     committee
>>      >>>>    means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would
>>     "foster"
>>      >>>>    clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know
>> many
>>      >>>>    others
>>      >>>>    on this list too) have already been contacted by the
>> Governance
>>      >>>>    Lab at
>>      >>>>    NYU to give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map
>>     that
>>      >>>>    would
>>      >>>>    be developed under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to
>>      >>>>    feel like
>>      >>>>    the only thing we and others would be doing is simply to
>>     rubberstamp
>>      >>>>    things that would happen anyway - but because we okay them,
>>      >>>>    somehow the
>>      >>>>    structure and the initiatives it gives birth to gain a
>>     legitimacy
>>      >>>>    that
>>      >>>>    they would not have had without. An unwise use of our
>>     power, I would
>>      >>>>    say (that they would go ahead without us anyway is
>>     something that a
>>      >>>>    representative from the WEF made clear enough to me in an
>>     informal
>>      >>>>    conversation in October. Some of the individual initiative,
>>     such as
>>      >>>>    that map, might have value, but about the structure as a
>>     whole, I am
>>      >>>>    not so certain)
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start
>>     exploring
>>      >>>>    the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work
>>     suggested by
>>      >>>>    Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what
>> they're
>>      >>>>    thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves
>>     and take it
>>      >>>>    forward.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>      Thanks and best,
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>      Anja
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma
>>     <nnenna75 at gmail.com <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>
>>      >>>>    <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>>>
>> wrote:
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially
>>     African Civil
>>      >>>>    Society members here.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is
>>     okay to
>>      >>>>    table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation
>>     may be
>>      >>>>    withdrawn if XYZ is not met.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in
>>     Africa, I
>>      >>>>    dont think we should miss out.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to
>>      >>>>    participate.
>>      >>>>    From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were
>>     already very
>>      >>>>    interested in the NMI.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform
>>     decides NOT to
>>      >>>>    participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating
>>     people.
>>      >>>>    And at
>>      >>>>    the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
>>      >>>>    participate.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>      All for now
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>      Nnenna
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I
>>     The Global
>>      >>>>    Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>>      >>>>    <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>
>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>>> wrote:
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        Jeremy,
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        Thanks for your email.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as
>> we
>>      >>>>    both do
>>      >>>>    not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be
>>     wise to
>>      >>>>    terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in
>> real
>>      >>>>    politics.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of
>>     better effect
>>      >>>>    and impact.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers
>> or
>>      >>>>    participants is that the initiative has more than a
>>     troubling set of
>>      >>>>    definitions, expectations and leading to an overall
>>     confusion. It
>>      >>>>    looks
>>      >>>>    more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate
>>     grouping of a
>>      >>>>    wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets,
>> and
>>      >>>>    friends
>>      >>>>    with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the
>>     obvious
>>      >>>>    tactics behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a
>>     consultant
>>      >>>>    for 10 years in my life, and can more than easily read the
>>     partition
>>      >>>>    behind all of that smoking screen. In the army, you always
>>     call some
>>      >>>>    troopers from the "génie" when you need a screen of smoke
>>     to cross a
>>      >>>>    street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's stay on what
>>     is at stake
>>      >>>>    such as
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that
>>     the US
>>      >>>>    refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep
>>     maturing
>>      >>>>    and growing?
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this
>> topic,
>>      >>>>    insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't
>> encryption
>>      >>>>    part of
>>      >>>>    the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US,
>>     in Sao
>>      >>>>    Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
>>      >>>>    surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour
>>     against the EU
>>      >>>>    decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my
>>      >>>>    view, that
>>      >>>>    search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the
>>     simple links
>>      >>>>    they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good
>>     debate for
>>      >>>>    CS.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More
>>     important
>>      >>>>    than IANA for example?
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas
>>     when it
>>      >>>>    comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN
>> is
>>      >>>>    saying
>>      >>>>    the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can
>>     we help
>>      >>>>    ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds?
>>     Looking at all
>>      >>>>    the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively
>>     impressed with
>>      >>>>    their
>>      >>>>    innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical
>>     corps. They
>>      >>>>    also create more "values".
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>>      >>>>    Nevertheless,
>>      >>>>    CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant
>>     of the
>>      >>>>    weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not
>>     to blame
>>      >>>>    JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN
>>     handle CS in a
>>      >>>>    satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had
>>     to twist
>>      >>>>    their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to
>>     simply
>>      >>>>    get it
>>      >>>>    not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys"
>>     not to go
>>      >>>>    directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions
>> when
>>      >>>>    launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they
>>     keep
>>      >>>>    creating distrust with their committees, high level panel,
>>     advisory
>>      >>>>    boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we
>> all
>>      >>>>    cry. We
>>      >>>>    are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet,
>> have a
>>      >>>>    debate
>>      >>>>    and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments,
>>     citizens and
>>      >>>>    corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing
>>      >>>>    asymmetry we
>>      >>>>    live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and
>> our
>>      >>>>    fellow
>>      >>>>    citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do
>>     that you do
>>      >>>>    not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and
>>     confront the
>>      >>>>    realities that are taking away our rights. This is what
>>     should be
>>      >>>>    done,
>>      >>>>    now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate
>>     about the
>>      >>>>    comfortable sofas of the WEF.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own
>>     mandate.
>>      >>>>    JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and
>>     reaching more and
>>      >>>>    more people. We should not care about that. We should care
>>     about
>>      >>>>    having
>>      >>>>    a collective action that would oblige governments, corps
>>     and the
>>      >>>>    current mandarins to take more progressive steps.
>>     Multistakeholderism
>>      >>>>    when it comes to convene and consult many participants is
>>     certainly
>>      >>>>    nice. This has often been done, long before we began to put
>>     in our
>>      >>>>    mouth the MS narrative. When it comes to make decisions at
>>     least
>>      >>>>    on the
>>      >>>>    public policy level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders
>>     had to go
>>      >>>>    through MS to make decision, they would have simply gone
>>     nowhere.
>>      >>>>    Only
>>      >>>>    a few guys fixing better than other few guys technical
>>     issues doesn't
>>      >>>>    equate a political model. It could work, but then it would
>> lead
>>      >>>>    to some
>>      >>>>    social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor
>> enough,
>>      >>>>    our bias
>>      >>>>    is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no
>>     corporation, no
>>      >>>>    barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic
>>      >>>>    concern (to
>>      >>>>    avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into
>>      >>>>    rationales
>>      >>>>    as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or
>> lunatics.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as
>>     civil
>>      >>>>    society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all
>>      >>>>    agree that
>>      >>>>    we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do
>>     not have
>>      >>>>    hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money
>>     in the
>>      >>>>    debate. That would be fair.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        JC
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
>>     Global
>>      >>>>    Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>>      >>>>    <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>>
>>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>>> wrote:
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first
>>     email.
>>      >>>>    On a
>>      >>>>    personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about
>>     the "dumping
>>      >>>>    on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog
>>     post
>>      >>>>    about
>>      >>>>    this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org>
>>     <http://igfwatch.org>, because JNC’s
>>      >>>>    pathologies are off-topic for this
>>      >>>>    list.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I
>>     do listen
>>      >>>>    to non JNC members:
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to
>> spread
>>      >>>>    Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world".
>>      >>>>    (Ask Drew
>>      >>>>    Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what
>>     is the WIB
>>      >>>>    Initiative)
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from
>> some
>>      >>>>    quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans,
>>     ... Fadi
>>      >>>>    Chehadé: ...
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>>      >>>>    Initiative
>>      >>>>    as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global
>>     [Internet]
>>      >>>>    governance”.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Based on these official and public statement, I can only
>>     read JNC
>>      >>>>    statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC
>>     reluctance to
>>      >>>>    participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be
>> to
>>      >>>>    blunt)
>>      >>>>    of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are
>>     owners of
>>      >>>>    what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due
>>     reserves by
>>      >>>>    different participants.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial
>>     Initiative
>>      >>>>    (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the
>>     NETmundial
>>      >>>>    meeting. On this much we agree.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that
>>     convoy ...
>>      >>>>    should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious
>>     concerns
>>      >>>>    seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives
>>     presented by the
>>      >>>>    WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part
>>     personally I
>>      >>>>    certainly have
>>      >>>>
>>     (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-
>> initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-
>> netmundial-principles).
>>      >>>>    What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the
>>     NETmundial
>>      >>>>    Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the
>>     motives of
>>      >>>>    other civil society groups and falsely attributing them
>>     with their
>>      >>>>    endorsement of the Initiative.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant
>>      >>>>    which was
>>      >>>>    sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently
>>     received, off
>>      >>>>    list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>     By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the
>>     BestBits list):
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail
>>     right now
>>      >>>>    because I am speaking at a conference today and will be
>>     boarding a
>>      >>>>    flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response
>> just
>>      >>>>    because
>>      >>>>    you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you -
>>     I’m not.
>>      >>>>    Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your questions
>>      >>>>    rather than
>>      >>>>    me monopolising the conversation.
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        --
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        Jeremy Malcolm
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> https://eff.org
>>      >>>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>     <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>        :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>      >>>>        You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto: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
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>.
>>      >>>>      To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>      --
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>      Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>      >>>>      The Internet Democracy Project
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>> +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053>
>>     <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>>      >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>>     <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>> You
>>      >>>>    received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To>
>>      >>>>    <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To>> unsubscribe or change
>>      >>>>    your settings,
>>      >>>>    visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>    -- `````````````````````````````````anriette
>>     esterhuysenexecutive
>>      >>>>    directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box
>> 29755,
>>      >>>>    melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>     <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>
>>      >>>>    <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>     <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>      >>>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------
>>      >>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>      >>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>.
>>      >>>>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>      >>>
>>      >>>    --
>>      >>>    Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my
>>     brevity.
>>      >>>
>>      >>>    ____________________________________________________________
>>      >>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>>      >>>    To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>      >>>
>>      >>>    For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>      >>>    To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>      >>>
>>      >>>    Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>    ____________________________________________________________
>>      >>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>.
>>      >>    To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >> --
>>      >> *Renata Avila *
>>      >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
>>      >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
>>      >> +44 7477168593 <tel:%2B44%207477168593> (UK)
>>      >>
>>      >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>>     Washington
>>      >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org
>>     <http://www.webfoundation.org>*
>>      >> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >> ____________________________________________________________
>>      >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>      > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Renata Avila *
>> Gl