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: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> <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 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 . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum>> li-democ >>> racy-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 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 ). 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 >> 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 , 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 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 website or following at 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 of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) 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, 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: 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: References: Message-ID: On 1 Nov 2014, at 6:56 pm, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal 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: -------------- 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: 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: For some background on this read Kieren McCarthy and Philip Corwin . 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] Yesterday, November 16 2014. following its meeting in Honolulu, the Internet Society's Board of Trustees issued the following statement : 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 See all 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: 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 > *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM > *To:* ip > *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > > A must read djf > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bob Hinden" > > Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM > Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > 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 > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees > > Archives > | > Modify > > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > [Powered by Listbox] > 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 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 >> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" > >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > >> 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 >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives >> | >> Modify >> >> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> >> [Powered by Listbox] >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> <5469A7F5.2070407@wzb.eu> <777AEF8E-1E4E-4498-AEB7-42272058B409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6BA1286F-33AF-4BDA-9FAC-836826C63255@gmail.com> > On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jean-Christophe Nothias 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: 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 >> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" > >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial >> Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > >> 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 >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives >> | >> Modify >> >> >> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> >> >> [Powered by Listbox] >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: 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 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 >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>> *To:* ip >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> >>> A must read djf >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial >>> Initiative >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> > >>> 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 >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>> >>> Archives >>> | >>> Modify >>> >>> >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: 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] 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 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 * channel. *What: Human Rights, Accountability, and Internet Governance 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 Twitter: @isocdc + #humanrights * Comment See all 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: 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 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 >> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> *To:* ip >> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" > >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > > >> 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 >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives >> | >> Modify >> >> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> >> [Powered by Listbox] >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 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 >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>> *To:* ip >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> >>> A must read djf >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> > >>> 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 >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>> >>> Archives >>> | >>> Modify >>> >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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: 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 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 >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>> *To:* ip >>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> >>> A must read djf >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> > >>> 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 >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>> >>> Archives >>> | >>> Modify >>> >>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>> >>> [Powered by Listbox] >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 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 >>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >>>> *To:* ip >>>> *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>>> >>>> A must read djf >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: "Bob Hinden" > >>>> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >>>> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >>>> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >>> > >>>> 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 >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >>>> >>>> Archives >>>> | >>>> Modify >>>> >>>> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >>>> >>>> [Powered by Listbox] >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: 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: 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: 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 on behalf of Ian Peter 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: References: 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 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 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: -------------- 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: 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: 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 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 > *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: 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: References: 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: 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: References: Message-ID: 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: 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 > *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: 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 >> *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: 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: 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: 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" 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: 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: References: 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: 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: <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 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: -------------- 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: 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: Message-ID: FWDed as requested Begin forwarded message: > From: "Richard Hill" > 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" , "David Cake" > Cc: "Best Bits" , "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" > Reply-To: > > 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: -------------- 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: 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 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: -------------- 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: 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 > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: 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: On Nov 18, 2014, at 7:04 AM, Norbert Bollow 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: References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> Message-ID: 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: References: <546A6801.70707@itforchange.net> <143101d002c4$369f27b0$a3dd7710$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> 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 < 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 :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: 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$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <179f01d00343$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: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, 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 : > 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: References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> <5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> 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 > > 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 >> > 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 >>> >>> >>> //// >>> >>> *//* >> >> *********************************************** 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 > > -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive > director association for progressive communications po box 29755, > melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org > 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/civicit http://www.ilab.ba/ > http://www.zenskaposla.ba > 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: References: 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 : > 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: 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: <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: Sorry for cross posting Début du message réexpédié : > De : Jean-Christophe Nothias > Date : 18 novembre 2014 17:30:26 HNEC > À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Cc : Baudouin Schombe , Norbert Bollow , 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: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >> 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 : >> >>> 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: 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: References: 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 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: 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: References: Message-ID: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal 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: 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 > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: 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 > > 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 >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: 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: 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" 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 > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: 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: 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: <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" > 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 >>> >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: 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$@gmail.com> <915854CC-711C-48FA-92AC-B9014B62EE37@eff.org> <20141118140406.036b546d@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164289A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <179f01d00343$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: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, 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 : > 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: <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 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: 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: 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 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: 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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 Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: 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: <732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba> <0776B4E0-B97C-44EC-B550-DAC31369AA71@difference.com.au> Message-ID: 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 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: 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: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> <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 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 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 . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the 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 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 ). 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 , 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 , 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 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 website or following at 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 of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) 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: 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: ,<732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba> Message-ID: 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: 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: References: ,<732EDECA41B2407A922FBA610939E35B@Toshiba> 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 > *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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: 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: References: <96408CD9A453499FB72972C951A44766@Toshiba> <546AD542.20702@itforchange.net> <7CD37A0771344819B39A327EA5AEBFC4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20141119100531.0d6e36f7@swan.bollow.ch> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:41:07 +0530 Sivasubramanian M 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: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cyfy 2014 Outcome Statement .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 492808 bytes Desc: not available URL: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: 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 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 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 >> 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: 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: 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 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 * (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 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 * channel. *What: The United Nations and the Internet—What’s 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 Twitter: @isocdc + #plenipot * Comment See all 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: 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: References: <20c101d0043b$4c6bf730$e543e590$@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 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: 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: 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: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> 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 > 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 > 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 > > 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: 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: References: 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: 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> Message-ID: +1000 Nnenna On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen 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 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 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 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: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> Message-ID: +1 to Anriette and Wolfgang 2014-11-20 9:04 GMT+01:00 Nnenna Nwakanma : > +1000 > > Nnenna > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > 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 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 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 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 ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <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 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 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 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: 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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 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 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: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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 >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 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 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 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@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 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 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 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 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: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> 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 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 >> 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 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 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 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: 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: 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 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 > 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 > > 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 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 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 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* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: 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: ,<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. 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] 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] 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]. 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], 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] In a different strand of its case-law, the General Court has referred to the "principle of the right to information" [11], and to the "principle of transparency" [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] 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] 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]. 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] In a recent judgment of 25 June 2013, for the case of Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia,[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] 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]. 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]. 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]. 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]: "’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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: 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 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 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 >> 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 >> >> 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 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 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 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: I agree! Byoungil Oh 2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva : > 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 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 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 > >> 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 > >> > >> 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 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 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 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 > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: 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 * ** * On 20 November 2014 09:27, Byoung-il Oh wrote: > I agree! > > Byoungil Oh > > > 2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva : > >> 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 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 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 >> >> 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 > > >> >> >> >> 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 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 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 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 >> > > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141120183004.2dcc15c6@quill> Ian Peter 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: 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 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 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 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 >>> 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 >>> >>> 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 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 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 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> 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 > 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 >> > 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 >>> > >>> 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 >> > 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 >> > 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 >> > 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 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <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 > 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 > 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 > 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 > 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <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 > > 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 >>> > 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 >>>> > >>>> 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 >>> > 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 >>> > 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 >>> > 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 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: ​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 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 >> > 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 > >>> > 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 > >>>> > > >>>> 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 >>>> > 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 >>>> > 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 >>>> > 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 > > -- *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* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: -------------- 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: 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: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@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 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 Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen < 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 < 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. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein < 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: 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: 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: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> 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 > 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 > >> >> 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 > >>> > >> 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 > >>>> > >> > >>>> 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 > > >>>> >> 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 > >>>> >> 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 > >>>> >> 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 > > > > > -- > *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 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: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Same concerns remain. Thank you for such clarification, in any case. R On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Carlos Afonso 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 > > 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 > >> >> > >> >> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> 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 >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> 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 >> >> >>>> >> >> 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 > >> >>>> > >> >> 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 > >> >>>> > >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *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 >> >> -- *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* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 20 14:08:19 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:08:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20141120200819.0facf3fe@quill> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200 Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text > > for discussion? > > With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative. Is it somehow / somewhere officially stated that the NMI plan includes reopening the São Paulo text for discussion? If so, I'd appreciate a pointer, as I would have in that case missed something of importance (even though I have been trying to observe this closely.) Greetings, Norbert > 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 > > 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 > > > >> > >> 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 > > >>> > > > >> 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 > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> 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 > > > > >>>> > >>>> >> 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 > > > >>>> > >> 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 > > > >>>> > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *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 jmalcolm at eff.org Thu Nov 20 14:14:12 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:14:12 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <20141120200819.0facf3fe@quill> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> <20141120200819.0facf3fe@quill> Message-ID: <546E3D84.1030407@eff.org> On 20/11/2014 11:08 am, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200 > Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text >> > for discussion? >> >> With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative. > Is it somehow / somewhere officially stated that the NMI plan includes > reopening the São Paulo text for discussion? > > If so, I'd appreciate a pointer, as I would have in that case missed > something of importance (even though I have been trying to observe this > closely.) This was a question that I've asked during both of the consultations, and got an equivocal answer suggesting that while it wasn't ruled out that there could be more work on text development, this was not foremost in peoples' minds. Personally I would much rather that the IGF developed the capacity to produce textual recommendations, and that the NETmundial Initiative stuck to simply implementation of principles agreed elsewhere. And adopted a different name so as not to mislead people that it was a continuation of the NETmundial meeting with the legitimacy to develop principles. -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Nov 20 14:29:58 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:29:58 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <20141120200819.0facf3fe@quill> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> <20141120200819.0facf3fe@quill> Message-ID: <546E4136.9000800@cafonso.ca> I think I did not make myself clear. The Declaration itself points to several instances of further discussion (e.g, net neutrality), and basically is a set of general guidelines around which a significant level of consensus was obtained. Once we start debating it with a view of going deeper into the roadmap, several new issues will arise and old ones will as well need to be dealt with. I do not think it is wise to treat the discussion on how to advance on the Declaration by doing like some of the so-called "like-minded countries" who treat the Tunis Agenda as an inmutable bible. It is clear that, if we wish to go ahead, many issues need to be clarified, improved, revisited etc. Sorry, I thought this was really obvious. frt rgds --c.a. On 11/20/14 17:08, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200 > Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text >> > for discussion? >> >> With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative. > > Is it somehow / somewhere officially stated that the NMI plan includes > reopening the São Paulo text for discussion? > > If so, I'd appreciate a pointer, as I would have in that case missed > something of importance (even though I have been trying to observe this > closely.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > >> 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 >> > 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 >> >>> >> >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> 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 >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> 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 >> >>> >>>> >> >> 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 >> >>> >>>> >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *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 14:31:29 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:31:29 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546E3D84.1030407@eff.org> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> <20141120200819.0facf3fe@quill> <546E3D84.1030407@eff.org> Message-ID: <546E4191.1040700@cafonso.ca> Jeremy, your scenario is a reasonable one, but can we really make the IGF "mature" to that point? We do need to try hard though. frt rgds --c.a. On 11/20/14 17:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 20/11/2014 11:08 am, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200 >> Carlos Afonso wrote: >> >>> > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text >>> > for discussion? >>> >>> With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative. >> Is it somehow / somewhere officially stated that the NMI plan includes >> reopening the São Paulo text for discussion? >> >> If so, I'd appreciate a pointer, as I would have in that case missed >> something of importance (even though I have been trying to observe this >> closely.) > > This was a question that I've asked during both of the consultations, > and got an equivocal answer suggesting that while it wasn't ruled out > that there could be more work on text development, this was not foremost > in peoples' minds. > > Personally I would much rather that the IGF developed the capacity to > produce textual recommendations, and that the NETmundial Initiative > stuck to simply implementation of principles agreed elsewhere. And > adopted a different name so as not to mislead people that it was a > continuation of the NETmundial meeting with the legitimacy to develop > principles. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 15:29:55 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:29:55 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <1136161679.7127.1416476339066.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k07> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <1136161679.7127.1416476339066.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k07> Message-ID: Hello, On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Anriette > > I'm profoundly disappointed to see APC rallying the WEF controlled NMI > process. > > > > I thought that APC would have more regards for ethics in the IS (AL C-10 > of the GAP !), and that it would be able to resist the gregarian instinct > of other organisations and (very ) ambitious "CS" people. Coming from the > "South" and particularly from Africa, this tropism towards business with > all its > anti-governmental/anti state beheaviour is truly shoccking. > > From reading your posts over time, I have understood you have an extensive experience of Africa -- or at least with some place(s) in Africa. But I wonder, though, what makes you believe (as it appears in your latter sentence above) that Africans should be more particularly sensitive about the " anti-governmental/anti state beheaviour" of business (so much so that it is shocking when they --Africans-- aren't, or appear not to be.) I understand what can be bad about such business behavior you're decrying, at least based on the example of tax evasion you've referenced. My point is that singling out of Africans (well, I can even concede that you meant to address only African CS) and the implication that they should all share the same incentives and that you know what those incentives are or should be. My first reaction to that is this. Your state/government (which I understand to be that of France) is more of value to you than my state/government (of Togo) is to me; you enjoy more protections and more services from your government than I do from mine. Currently, I can't even enjoy the guaranty of a minimum 512 Kbps bandwidth in my country although it is located on the coastline of the Atlantic Ocean where plenty of capacity has been built out over the last 10 years in the form of submarine optical fiber cable (by the private sector, mind you, and yes, because they want to make profit.) Currently I can't operate properly at the level I would like to if I decide to settle in my country, as I would want to. This situation is not due to business but to my own government which is dragging its feet to provide the country with a landing point for the fiber and is holding on to backward policies (eg, scarce, costly and slow satellite connectivity.) Secondly, governments themselves get in cahoots with big business. I just recall how previous governments in Nigeria were fine with oil business polluting the Niger delta while hanging activist Ken Saro-Wiwa for protesting about it. And I'm sure you know that the French government use their power position with governments in francophone Africa to ensure sweet and even monopolistic deals in favor of French big business. Those are facts, and I'm just saying. Before some people here jump to the conclusion that they now know where I come down on this, let me just say that so far I may have been known for a lot of things, but a big business champion is certainly not one of them (and I have my share of criticism for business.) My point is that in this manicheism we indulge in, no one is really clean (and your manicheism doesn't have to be my manicheism, as we are all likely to have that urge for simplification.) Best, Mawaki > Tax evasion is a model of WEF "governance", just for giving one example, > and this is depriving states and governments of thousends billion dollars > revenue ! Especially in Africa. In your enthousiasm to join the WEF > bandwagon, did you (and APC) forgot this fact ? APC is bringing WSIS-CS > into disrepute. > > Where is our spirit and our commitment of Geneva, when CS was strong > enough to resist the pressure from governments and issued its own > Declaration? > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > Message du 20/11/14 08:16 > > De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" > > A : "Anja Kovacs" , "Nnenna Nwakanma" < > nnenna75 at gmail.com> > > Copie à : "Governance" , "Best Bits" < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > Objet : 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 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 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 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: > 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: > 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 16:27:22 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:27:22 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_Message_to_attendees_of_The_United_Na?= =?UTF-8?Q?tions_and_the_Internet=E2=80=94What=E2=80=99s_Next_-_A=2E=2E=2E?= In-Reply-To: <20141120212535.B785E1CA9A@prod-task-app2.evbops.com> References: <20141120212535.B785E1CA9A@prod-task-app2.evbops.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society < auto-message at eventbrite.com> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:25 PM Subject: Message to attendees of The United Nations and the Internet—What’s Next - A... To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com A Message from Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society: Thanks to all who came out in person or were one of the 58 people listening online. I think it was a great event and glad we got so many people to come in person or join online. If you had not had a chance to get your questions asked or answered please let us know and we would be happy to pass it on to the Discussants. If you missed some part of the event, we have archived the webcast and it can be viewed here. http://www.isoc-dc.org/isoc-dc-tv/ If you want to come to our future events, please join our email list http://www.isoc-dc.org/email-sign-up/ See you at future events. This invitation was sent to carolina.rossini at gmail.com by Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society the organizer. To stop receiving invitations from this organizer, you can unsubscribe . [image: Eventbrite] Eventbrite | 155 5th St | San Francisco, CA 94103 -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Thu Nov 20 17:21:33 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:21:33 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2ED04A1D-42A0-43C2-8EFA-506C267F8A1C@me.com> This phrase is perfect Nnenna! "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." Dears, I'm experiencing an intense cognitive dissonance on this thread. My ideological point of view show me that I need to agree to ISOC and others and refuse NMI, however my strategical point of view show me that I need to follow that amazing Mandela's phrase above. The fact is that MNI will move forward with or without us, and without us "on board" the things may get worse. Agreeing or not NMI was conceived behind the WEF, and this not appear subject to change. On the other hand this is one path for the actors of civil society (we) "hack the system" from inside them, paraphrasing Nelson Mandela I will evoke Sun Tzu to this big shoulder's board: "Knows yourself and the enemy and win all battles". With this in mind I've decided to nominate myself to a chair under LAC, Civil Society sector at MNI, once elected I will do my best for our agenda including Transparency, Accountability, Open participation and other demands. If you agree with me, and want to support my candidature, please let me know. Thanks for all Joao Carlos Caribe Em 20/11/2014, às 08:26, Nnenna Nwakanma escreveu: > 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 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 20 18:09:38 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:09:38 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: > 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? I too am amazed that it amazes civil society people that someone makes a direct connection between partnering with a WEF based initiative on governing a key social sector and compromising on social justice considerations.. In this regard, one would want to point to literature on what is the world social forum for instance, how it came into being in direct opposition to a Davos or WEF world view, and how the concept of social justice is central to this opposition and so on, but one would have thought people and groups in global civil society will know these facts.. But indeed there are "new reality" global civil societies I suppose.. They are ready to "give a shot" to anything as long as - or is it just a coincidence - the status quo of global Internet power is on the same side of to what a shot is being given. (It is perhaps just a coincidence that US is the only country which has till now issued a statement on the NMI - and of course positive, and big US Internet companies are on WEF's board.) No, we did not think of giving a shot to , well, maybe the ITU could be a fine place to deal with Internet issues .. In that case the fancy new ideas of 'making your enemy your partner' did not occur to anyone.... Again, just a coincidence that US and Google had preemptorily declared before the WCIT that Internet is not a telecom service and therefore it is not ITU's remit (although back in the US, both the gov and google today seek classification of Internet as a telecom service under title 2 of FCC's legal instruments) Amazing indeed! parminder > > 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 > 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 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 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 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: <639BB22E-1E89-4E72-8047-7140CA3B4E72@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> <639BB22E-1E89-4E72-8047-7140CA3B4E72@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <29ab01cff600$da5b6790$8f1236b0$@gmail.com> David, It is actually rather simple… You either have as your aspirational fundamental principle of governance—“Democracy” i.e. the rule of and for the people or something else, as in your case MSism as the rule of and for unaccountable (at your urging I’ll replace “self-selected” with the commensurable term “unaccountable”), “self” interested elites/stakeholders. You either try to reform existing systems to become more democratic (including finding ways of ensuring that the range of non-elite voices are part of governance processes) or you look for ways of replacing less than fully democratic systems with unaccountable elite driven MS systems. So which side are you on? M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:57 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; 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 8:51 pm, michael gurstein wrote: Well first of all by definition “those who contribute” are “self-selected”… they chose to contribute and were not selected by others such as organizations, community groups, nation states or whoever to contribute on their behalf… The ability to self-select does not imply that participants are not representative of anyone. For example I usually participate in ICANN and IGF processes as a representative of an organisation with several hundred dues paying members, and must from time to time face re-election. But in a sense I am still self-selected, as I could still participate as an individual if I wished, and I participate as a volunteer not an employee. Demographically etc. they practically are an “elite” in that they are part of that extremely small sub-set of possible contributors who have the skills, knowledge, resources (including time/money) to contribute where others who might have a concern or might be impacted do not have sufficient skills, knowledge, resources etc. … But using the term 'self-selected elite' pejoratively becomes nonsensical iff you use it this broadly. Are you literally arguing that it is desirable for those who lack the skills and knowledge and resources to *directly* participate in policy processes? And even if we lower the barriers to entry, unless we lower them to practically zero, those who fully participate will always be somewhat of an elite in that sense. If we take ICANN for example, it is unlikely that we will get to the point at which a majority of the worlds population are even able to explain why the domain name system is. Now, we can all agree that it is a good thing if the interests of those who lack the skills, knowledge and resources to participate in policy processes are represented, and surely civil society participation aids that goal. And we can all agree that lowering the barriers to participation so that full participation is not restricted to those able to find funding from somewhere for travel if needed, requiring fluent English, sometimes requiring understanding of fairly complex communication tools, etc. But if we use 'elite' so broadly that it includes anyone able to find the time to understand the issues and spend time participating, then directly participating in policy processes will always be restricted to an elite, and using the term pejoratively is nonsensical. Regards David M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen'; michael gurstein Cc: 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 How does 'those who contribute' equate to a self selected elite? On 24 October 2014 5:59:09 pm "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. Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. 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 Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen < 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 < 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. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein < 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: 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 20 18:17:31 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:17:31 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> <546E2D26.3040801@cafonso.ca> <41F67CCE-5AB8-4341-BDE7-30A6F05FC243@theglobaljournal.net> <546E396B.60504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <30ec12418335df6ca007e4e9a24d268a.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for > > discussion? > > With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative. Whereby you are saying that the new NetMundial Initiative is indeed a normative process as the NM meeting in Sao Paolo was. Richard Samans of WEF says it is not a normative process at all.. Can you guys be clear what it is and what it is not? parminder > > 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 > > 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 > >> >> > >> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> 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 >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> 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 >> >> >>>> >> >> 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 > >> >>>> > >> 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 > >> >>>> > >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 20 18:33:00 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:33:00 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: > The ought to be some limits to having to read silly conclusions like > this one. Carlos When the NMI was initially launched in Aug 2014, you have publicly said that "The WEF is a very inadequate venue for this kind of practice" I suspected that this statement had something to do with how progressive civil society views the WEF, with issues of neoliberalism, social justice, etc being central to such viewing... (Please let me know if I judged wrong.) But suddenly you seem to consider any statement asserting that joining a WEF based governance initiative could be seen as a jettisoning social justice considerations as being silly beyond limits, which frankly surprises me. So, what happened between Aug and now that makes you change your views so drastically. Just bec WEF has sought to soften the blows of the criticism it faced by co-opting an IG related agency of one developing country (regrettable the one which have us the World Social Forum with the direct purpose of challenging the WEF's worldview) . Should bec of that one fact the rest of the world stop saying what you were saying a few months back? parminder > > --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 > > 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 > > 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 > > 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 >> > > From amedinagomez at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 18:38:42 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=C3=B3mez?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:38:42 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: +1 Mwenda Totally agree with your ideas. Support for such initiatives. It comes hard work and takes time and ongoing coordination. I think the door is open for a civil society in action 2014-11-20 10:59 GMT-05:00 Ginger Paque : > 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 > > * ** * > > > On 20 November 2014 09:27, Byoung-il Oh wrote: > >> I agree! >> >> Byoungil Oh >> >> >> 2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva : >> >>> 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 >>> 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 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 >>> >> 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 >>> 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 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 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet presidencia at acui.co @amedinagomez Skype amedinagomez Celular 3118689626 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Thu Nov 20 18:52:57 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:52:57 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <202EAA12-B7CA-4BF1-8C38-D93BD090FB23@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: I agree with Kivuva. I can't imagine the reason to keep permanent seats at MNI, really, all seats must be changed,even though in two alternating cycles. Em 20/11/2014, às 21:38, Antonio Medina Gómez escreveu: > 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. -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Nov 20 19:29:32 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:29:32 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: > >> 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. Please reread my mails of the time. Do you really think a few Civil Society activists and non-architect engineers from the IETF would reshape the world alone. There is only one way to lead the world: power and force. However, you do not want to manage to get it. Force is a better technology. This means competent, innovative, experienced work. Power is that technology to be used. This means political cooperation or financial support. As long as you do not want Libre, you do not want Govs and you do not want WEF, you can keep moaning. The situation is simple. It has not changed since August 22, 2012 (RFC 6852, IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C declaration). Either we stay with the old non-secure IETF technology that ICANN, Rosettanet, BRICS and WEF can do with. Or we rebuild a "secure internet" as partly demanded by IAB through a Libre/Civil Society coalition - not necessarily under the NSA/USCC. Our interest is NOT to dispute political ideas, not to arbitrate between ICANN/WEF and ISOC/IETF. Our interest is to intelligently look at our own IUsers interests. i.e. for a fail-safe plan four our net jfc From iza at anr.org Thu Nov 20 20:38:35 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:38:35 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] World Internet Conference Day 3 - "Wuzhen Declaration" proposed Message-ID: Day 3 of World Internet Conference just started, am attending the "Internet Governance Forum" Here is the memo I am taking, real time if connection works https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYdPeOrnWRuGbjbXStAeQHJ3BcbQ0j_ARw20eqcnuj0/edit Go to page 52 for Day 3. Now, early this morning an envelope was inserted under the door of my room. There was Draft Wuzhen Declaration - 2 pages in Chinese and English, each. It says in the attached cover letter, "During the Conference, many spakers and participants suggest that a Wuzhen declaration be released at the closing ceremony. If you want to make revision to it, please contact the organizing committee before 8 a.m. (to info at wicwuzhen.cn) I found this at 8:40! It was not there until 12 pm last night for sure. Anyway, here is the main points: After the preamble, We call on the international community to work together to build an international Internet governance system of multilateralism, democracy and transparency and a cyberspace of peace, security, openness and cooperation Then followed by these principles with 4 or 5 lines each, 1. Enhance cyberspace connectivity 2. Respect Internet sovereignty of all countries 3. Jointly safeguard cyber security 4, Jointly fight cyber terrorism 5. Advance development of Internet technology 6. Vigorously develop the Internet economy 7. Widely spread the positive energy 8. Dedicate to the healthy growth of young people 9. work for a cyberspace shared and governed by all There is no mention of Multistakholder, Human Rights, Free flow of information, among others. My first look. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Thu Nov 20 21:00:28 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:00:28 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet Conference. Izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi AIZU Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference Dear Sir/madam, I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing this wonderful event. I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the spirit of "shared and governed by all". Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the value of our declaration. Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered information society, that is a mistake. No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely undermines the value and effect. There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural dimensions Internet will contribute. Following points are also observed: - Consensus is missing from international cooperation - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger role to help developing countries from her experience With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed and connected with your great effort. Izumi Aizu Senior Research Fellow and Professor, Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Fri Nov 21 00:47:26 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:47:26 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the closing ceremony, but that did not happen. Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree with" to an American guest. It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm Press Conference (or not). izumi 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet > Conference. > > Izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 > Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference > > > Dear Sir/madam, > > I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing > this wonderful event. > > I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected > world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. > > Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments > for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet > Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. > > First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 > am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the > spirit of "shared and governed by all". > > Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach > which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, > IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even > though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring > this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the > value of our declaration. > > Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered > information society, that is a mistake. > > No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely > undermines the value and effect. > > There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the > Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural > dimensions Internet will contribute. > > Following points are also observed: > > - Consensus is missing from international cooperation > > - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment > > - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities > > - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough > consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) > > - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger > role to help developing countries from her experience > > With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. > > I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: > > "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ > > Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed > and connected with your great effort. > > Izumi Aizu > Senior Research Fellow and Professor, > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > www.anr.org > > > -- >> 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: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Nov 21 03:07:11 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:07:11 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <1416551594.31150.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1416551594.31150.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As we all know the Net Mundial is not a international treaty, it is not seated on any democratic legitimacy, it is not binding (to any stakeholders). It is wishful thinking, whatever we think it is. It has no road map. It has not defined any robust process of further consultation simply because it lacked any legitimacy. It has given no definition of what means "democratic multistakeholderism" probably because the "grouping" did not really asked itself what it really meant. Will the current initiative have to deal with all of these pending questions? Even re-write part of what was agreed with some difficulty and reserve? Well if it is so, it is more than predictable that this "initiative" will soon or later be lost in an ocean of other non consequential statements. With the asymmetry still at full speed. Is the NMI supposed to reassure the US government to transition the IANA function to ICANN (with cutting the direct link between itself and IANA, replacing this link by another one between itself and ICANN). Is this the NMI mission? Right now, the IANA contract might simply be renewed to give some extra time for clarifying the transition. But then why do we all bother? The NMI final report is suppposedly being processed... So Brazil would have simply be part of another swindle, and the Brazilian UN speech sent to the archives of this international institution created in san Francisco, in 1944. "Circulez bonnes gens". I don't think anyone should worry about the fact that such or such grouping self-appoints to itself a mandate of delivering a message to the world. The NMI initiative is right now of the track of becoming another masquarade. What is more depressing and concerning is the fact that IG civil society is totally failing its function and democratic challenge. Again, would it be more clever for civil society (as composed today) to - get together - see how to best transform the IGF in a useful forum, looking for becoming a really influential body ( go and get some funding at ICANN, WEF, BRAZIL as they look really concerned with the future of Internet) - keep talking with any table, if this table wishes to listen, and engage a conversation (that can be done without endorsing the table). One can simply wait for the outcome of any given table. Civil society would always be able to make its comment. No one here believes that governments will obey to a statement by a WEF/ICANN/CGIbr. - Assess its capacity to make progress - Be transparent about its source of funds (keep at bay the nice friends trying to twist the dialogue) If the current civil society participants are unable to go in that direction, new participants will take the lead, and send the not-ables to a well deserved rest. The new ones will be a bit more radical, and probably more efficient. With ISOC, JNC and others including some US academics refusing to give a free ride ticket, this initiative will just meet its destiny. And so what? What will be the dramatic changes? Be influential on something that has no consequence, what's the big deal? Some have expressed their idea of getting more acquainted with the "enemy". I don't see WEF as an enemy, and I don't see why I need to enter their bunker by the lake with lock doors, video surveillance, security guards, lacking some sense of hospitality and welcome to visitors, to better know what is WEF. It is more than well known to any honest broker who wishes to get it clear. It is for example already clear that the WEF vision of BIG DATA comes in contradiction to what CS is advocating in terms of protecting rights, and not just human rights. But why in this thread so far, no one was really concerned with this? On the contrary we might assist to another terrible mass to praise free-markets to handle any issues, including the public ones, thanks to elitist equal footing. "The only thing you don't want is more regulations" that was said during the GIP conference. During the GIF, isolated poor business representatives complained that corporations were not included of the Internet governance debate - a joke! That probably explains why it was hard for them to give the floor to other participants. Let's the divide get bigger, if this is all what our imagination is allowing us to think about. Seating 5 cs participants to NMI will bring nothing to IG. Getting CS together would bring much more. Let us see what a "democratic multistakeholderism" will happen to be once the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr will have had a second thought about it. Civil society is now aiming at a level zero of Politics. And we look like babies. "En avoir ou pas" wrote Hemingway. JC Le 21 nov. 2014 à 07:33, Arsene TUNGALI a écrit : > Hi there, > > Here are my thoughts on this trend. > > Civil Society is a stakeholder and it has its power as others to influence processes. In my life, i learnt to not refuse to be part of a process just because i don't share 'some' principles from one of the organisers although it is something that is important and can have a global impact in my own life and the life of those i most care about. Instead, i take the opportunity to go and try to help them change their behaviors. If nothing changes, then i know what to do. > > Flavio (CGI) said in the mail Mawaki shared: > ''...So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration.'' > > Let's be part of the NMI but let's also define clear points: 'what we will never endorse' and 'what we need to work on as a CS agenda and give it to our 5 representatives'. We do have principles, right? > > We are at a big step of the history and not being part of this can be something future generations will never understand and will never forgive. We all know that they will go with or without us. Instead, if we go and things turn against our principles, then our 'publicized' leave will have more sense than a simple boycott before giving it a try. This is a big responsibility and an important decision for the future of CS as a whole. > > These are personal views! > > Regards, > A > ------------------ > Arsene Tungali, > Executive Director, Rudi International > www.rudiinternational.org > > Founder, Mabingwa Forum > www.mabingwa-forum.com > Phone:+243993810967 > > ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. > Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > At 21 nov. 2014 07:39:52, Suresh Ramasubramanian<'suresh at hserus.net'> wrote: > > > > > > > I can't agree more. The other > thing is you will definitely find other civil society organizations at the > table, whatever the local consensus we achieve here is. > > > > > > On > November 21, 2014 10:55:08 AM shailam at yahoo.com wrote: > > >> Hi >> If >> we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we are not >> there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy decisions. >> Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, the prevailing >> factor is to be a participating presence. >> Shaila Rao Mistry >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:35 >> AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Even within civil society, >>> include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like >>> neoliberal >>> >>> >>> I suppose it is a mercy that >>> 'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On >>> November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear >>>> Guru, >>>> >>>> ​(You >>>> (Guru) said: ​WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >>>> seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>>> Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from >>>> using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>>> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, >>>> their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the >>>> information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also >>>> understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >>>> extraordinary programme of global >>>> surveillance >>>> >>>> ​If such as strong generalization of big >>>> business is to be accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe >>>> to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and >>>> summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that >>>> Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - >>>> Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your >>>> reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude >>>> Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance >>>> must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil >>>> Society as the only stakeholder group. >>>> >>>> Seriously, if WSIS had committed to build a >>>> "people-centred, inclusive and >>>> development-oriented Information Society​", what happens to >>>> inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? >>>> ​ >>>> >>>> And, why this hatred for big business? Most >>>> progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more >>>> because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the >>>> information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on >>>> surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such >>>> cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced >>>> by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative >>>> ways. >>>> >>>> Irrespective >>>> of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very >>>> positive development to bring in the WEF. ​WEF >>>> participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of >>>> business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might >>>> by itself act as a balancing influence within the corporate world, because >>>> many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" >>>> themselves. ​Some >>>> of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is >>>> needed here is strong support at the moment, and we could >>>> ​eventually >>>> ​work towards a >>>> greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ ​ >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Mawaki >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to cite from two sources: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - >>>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html >>>> (the very >>>> first two clauses) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled >>>> in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World >>>> Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and >>>> commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and >>>> development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, >>>> access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling >>>> individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential >>>> in promoting their sustainable development and improving their >>>> quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the >>>> Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the >>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> >>>> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and >>>> communication technology to promote the development goals of the >>>> Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty >>>> and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of >>>> gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child >>>> mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, >>>> malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; >>>> and development of global partnerships for development for the >>>> attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also >>>> reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable >>>> development and agreed development goals, as contained in the >>>> Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the >>>> Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations >>>> Summits. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I now will cite from the WEF site - >>>> http://www.weforum.org/our-members >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Begin >>>> >>>> Our Members >>>> >>>> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members >>>> comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises >>>> usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises >>>> rank among the top companies within their industry and play a >>>> leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. >>>> Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry >>>> Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their >>>> engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The >>>> Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. >>>> >>>> End >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >>>> seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>>> Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart >>>> from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>>> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated >>>> work also is structuring our participation in the information >>>> society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand >>>> how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >>>> extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in >>>> their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only >>>> legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate >>>> in the NMI. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> thanks and regards >>>> >>>> Guru >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >>>> >>>> Director, IT for Change >>>> >>>> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >>>> >>>> www.ITforChange.Net| Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 >>>> 26654134, >>>> 26536890 >>>> >>>> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>> >>>> > Dear All, >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't >>>> repeat >>>> >>>> > the background details. In the middle of the night last >>>> night, before >>>> >>>> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing >>>> catch-up with >>>> >>>> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >>>> >>>> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, >>>> they are >>>> >>>> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the >>>> NMI >>>> >>>> > Coordination Council. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership >>>> of CSCG >>>> >>>> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI >>>> process >>>> or >>>> >>>> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations >>>> we've been >>>> >>>> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and >>>> with the >>>> >>>> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we >>>> should be >>>> >>>> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position >>>> about >>>> >>>> > our participation in the NMI process. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be >>>> brief. >>>> >>>> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement >>>> and, if >>>> >>>> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you >>>> if you >>>> >>>> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph >>>> (as we >>>> >>>> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see >>>> what I >>>> >>>> > mean.) >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Mawaki >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> 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: >>> >>> 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: > 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: From dave at difference.com.au Fri Nov 21 04:12:43 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:12:43 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> Yes, +1 to everything Wolfgang said. I appreciated the updates, and think you took the right approach. David On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Thanks Izumi, > > clear language, great job, right approach. Well done and thanks for all the info. > > Wolfgang > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 06:47 > An: governance; > Betreff: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the > closing ceremony, but that did not happen. > > Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal > conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree > with" to an American guest. > > It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm > Press Conference (or not). > > izumi > > > > > 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > >> Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet >> Conference. >> >> Izumi >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Izumi AIZU >> Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration >> To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference >> >> >> Dear Sir/madam, >> >> I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing >> this wonderful event. >> >> I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected >> world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. >> >> Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments >> for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet >> Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. >> >> First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 >> am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the >> spirit of "shared and governed by all". >> >> Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach >> which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, >> IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even >> though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring >> this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the >> value of our declaration. >> >> Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered >> information society, that is a mistake. >> >> No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely >> undermines the value and effect. >> >> There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the >> Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural >> dimensions Internet will contribute. >> >> Following points are also observed: >> >> - Consensus is missing from international cooperation >> >> - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment >> >> - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities >> >> - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough >> consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) >> >> - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger >> role to help developing countries from her experience >> >> With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. >> >> I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: >> >> "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" >> >> >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhen_summit/ >> >> Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed >> and connected with your great effort. >> >> Izumi Aizu >> Senior Research Fellow and Professor, >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> www.anr.org >> >> >> > > > -- >>> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Nov 1 02:24:43 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:54:43 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> Message-ID: <54547CAB.80201@itforchange.net> 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 > > 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 > > 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 . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the 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 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 ). 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 , 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 , 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 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 website or following at 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 of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 14:31:18 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:31:18 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.a u> Message-ID: <29d101cff602$074a96d0$15dfc470$@gmail.com> However, when it comes to broader issues affecting broader public policy and the broader public interest such as for example–taxation policy and revenue distribution, censorship, and the application and enforcement of human rights–means need to be found to ensure the broadest possible inclusion in the mechanisms of governance if only on the basis of classical democratic principles. As well and perhaps of most importance as the Internet becomes the basis for more and more aspects of public life and civic engagement, the denial of principles of universal suffrage with respect to Internet governance is a denial of democracy itself. So let’s drop the terminology and conceptual apparatus of “Internet users” at least in the context of Internet policy and Internet governance. Rather let’s think about everyone as actual or potential “users’ of the Internet and everyone as being impacted either directly or indirectly by the Internet. Thus we are all “stakeholders” in Internet governance and we all should have the right to participate in the decisions which will impact on the future management and governance of the Internet — our common heritage and destiny. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/q-who-are-internet-users-a-everyone/ M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:23 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; 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 2:19 am, michael gurstein wrote: As I pointed out in an earlier message 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”. In iCANN processes, general users of the Internet qualify as stakeholders. While obviously it is impractical for someone who does not yet have access to the Internet to directly participate, there is no barrier to anyone who wishes to advocate for the interests of that group participating, and some do. There are no effective bars to participation based on the definition of stakeholder. This applies to most other MS bodies - for example, becoming involved with an IETF process is literally as simple as joining a mailing list. If you want to be involved in a specific process, you can. They are very open - far, far, more open than any government policy development process of which I am aware. And Michael, you should know this. Are you ignorant of this, despite having allegedly studied these institutions for years, or disingenuously lumping IG MS bodies in with the WEF etc again? You keep using 'self-appointed' as if it is a terrible thing. If the process is truly open, of course many participants will be self-appointed. You keep using self-appointed pejoratively - I'm taking from this that you want a closed process, in which all participants are gatekeepered (presumably by governments, or some other bureaucratic process?)? Regards David Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … 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”. M From: Jeremy Malcolm [ mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:13 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 11:03 am, michael gurstein wrote: As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so.” And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right time and place” to give that definition! That's why I set up a fluid working group under Best Bits to develop such a definition, but there was not much participation (or maybe the LiquidFeedback software was too complex for people to be comfortable using): http://bestbits.net/lf/ So far, FWIW, this is the definition that has most support (Avri wrote it): Multistakeholderism: study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and the implementations. with the following definitions of some included terms Equal footing: The recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet governance this is in line with stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number of people that a representative may claim. Notions of equal footing must take into account all aspects of capacity to participate, and must strive to enable full participation through capacity building and development agendas. Stakeholder: A term borrowed from Project Management. ” Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations, or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively involved in a project’s work, affected by the project’s outcome, or in a position to affect the project’s success. “ and the derivative: Multistakeholder process: A form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. -- 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: From nigel.hickson at icann.org Fri Nov 21 04:32:17 2014 From: nigel.hickson at icann.org (Nigel Hickson) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:32:17 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration In-Reply-To: <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <379D159B-6A67-4AE9-9029-A46139BF4E1A@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Izumi Indeed; so useful having updates on these important developments. Very grateful. Was sent the following link re speech / intervention by Head of Roskomnadzor (Russian Censorship agency): Internet should be administrated by international organizations (http://tass.ru/obschestvo/1587655, Russian language only). Best Nigel From: David Cake Reply-To: David Cake Date: Friday 21 November 2014 10:12 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de" Cc: Izumi AIZU , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration Yes, +1 to everything Wolfgang said. I appreciated the updates, and think you took the right approach. David On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:07 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Thanks Izumi, > > clear language, great job, right approach. Well done and thanks for all the > info. > > Wolfgang > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 06:47 > An: governance; > Betreff: [governance] Re: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration > > We all expected that the Wuzhen Declaration would be read out at the > closing ceremony, but that did not happen. > > Later, at the lunch reception, MInister Lu Wei said in an informal > conversation "oh, we don't call it a Declaration, since you do not agree > with" to an American guest. > > It remains to be seen, however, if they will still announce it at the 3 pm > Press Conference (or not). > > izumi > > > > > 2014-11-21 11:00 GMT+09:00 Izumi AIZU : > >> Here is what I just sent to the organizing committee of the World Internet >> Conference. >> >> Izumi >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Izumi AIZU >> Date: 2014-11-21 10:59 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: My reservation to Wuzhen Declaration >> To: Organizing Committee of World Internet Conference >> >> >> Dear Sir/madam, >> >> I have been enjoying the WIC so much. Thank you for creating and sharing >> this wonderful event. >> >> I agree with the theme - Internet governance for all - or Interconnected >> world shared and governed by all. I appreciate the open dialogue sessions. >> >> Now, to the Wuzhen Declaration, I would like to make following comments >> for the record as an active member of the Civil Society engaged in Internet >> Governance and Information Society issues and make my humble reservation. >> >> First, getting the draft in the middle of the night and the deadline of 8 >> am for any revision is impossible to accommodate. This is against the >> spirit of "shared and governed by all". >> >> Second, there is no mention of "Multistakeholder" process or approach >> which has been well accepted by most, if not all, of stakeholders at ICANN, >> IGF, and other international fora for Internet governance mechanisms. Even >> though there are a lot of room for improvement and reform, simply ignoring >> this principle from the declaration, in my view, will greatly discredit the >> value of our declaration. >> >> Also, there is no reference to WSIS Tunis Agenda, people-centered >> information society, that is a mistake. >> >> No mention of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also severely >> undermines the value and effect. >> >> There is too much emphasis on economic and technological potential of the >> Internet, but far less views expressed to social, human and cultural >> dimensions Internet will contribute. >> >> Following points are also observed: >> >> - Consensus is missing from international cooperation >> >> - Internet as an permissionless innovation environment >> >> - Accountable participation as part of cyber security activities >> >> - Advancement of Internet technology should build on global rough >> consensus of the engineering technical community (not politics) >> >> - Internet as an economy of growth and that China should play a bigger >> role to help developing countries from her experience >> >> With these reasons, I like to make my reservation on record. >> >> I also like to mention the statement we co-signed: >> >> "Community Statement Presented at Wuzhen Summit" >> >> >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141120_community_statement_presented_at_wuzhe >> n_summit/ >> >> Thank you for your attention and understanding, I still remain committed >> and connected with your great effort. >> >> Izumi Aizu >> Senior Research Fellow and Professor, >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> www.anr.org >> >> >> > > > -- >>> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Nov 21 06:34:36 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:34:36 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <1416551594.31150.YahooMailIosMobile@web28703.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: JCN, you will note that things develop according to plan: to free digitality from amateurs in using their own strength. This is Aikido for Putin, Sun-Tsu for Chineses, multistkeholders for the USG, disarrayed architecture engineering for IETF, T&L for the CS, etc. you name it. Now, question is "whose plan"? The response is in the missing fundamental consideration: architectonics. How things realy work, the ***science*** of politics which is the ***art*** of commanding to these human free societal animals, whose sociability is bluntly facilitated by artificial pervasive services and influencable peripheral intelligence. The plan is just what science call a SOC, self-organized criticality, mathematics compute according to the laws of catastrophes, and networking has made us reach the conceptual core of complexity. This is what we used to call "chaos" - which also is fractal (rules are not dependent on the scale) and deterministic.(because there are rules, and the science of these rules is architectonics). What you describe is the way this SOC episode of ours is going to resolve. SOC resolutions are by emergences. These emergences are longer or shorter depending on the way the "stake holders" overstand (rastafari meeaning - entendre in French, entender in Spanish) what is going on and adequately contribute. This is just a simple part of the humanity's History. Don't worry too much we know the likely end of the story from the public international network prototype I had to moderate in the 80s and from our day to day life. There is the medium and there is the language. We still confuse them in a single protocol stack. What we are currently doing is splitting the transport stratum (TCP/IP, NDN; etc.) from the semiotic stratum (business, politics, volunteers, private life, etc. semantics). There were two ways at least to do it: within the protocol stack (this was the limited presentation OSI layer six) or in splitting the stack in two different parts. There is a long time I made my mind, the IAB just decided to consider this architectural issue (35 years later, but with two billions users more). Nothing complicate, just deeper in complexity. Interesting. jfc At 09:07 21/11/2014, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Jouriticnal wrote: >As we all know the Net Mundial is not a >international treaty, it is not seated on any >democratic legitimacy, it is not binding (to any >stakeholders). It is wishful thinking, whatever >we think it is. It has no road map. It has not >defined any robust process of further >consultation simply because it lacked any >legitimacy. It has given no definition of what >means "democratic multistakeholderism" probably >because the "grouping" did not really asked itself what it really meant. > >Will the current initiative have to deal with >all of these pending questions? Even re-write >part of what was agreed with some difficulty and reserve? > >Well if it is so, it is more than predictable >that this "initiative" will soon or later be >lost in an ocean of other non consequential >statements. With the asymmetry still at full speed. > >Is the NMI supposed to reassure the US >government to transition the IANA function to >ICANN (with cutting the direct link between >itself and IANA, replacing this link by another >one between itself and ICANN). Is this the NMI >mission? Right now, the IANA contract might >simply be renewed to give some extra time for clarifying the transition. > >But then why do we all bother? The NMI final >report is suppposedly being processed... So >Brazil would have simply be part of another >swindle, and the Brazilian UN speech sent to the >archives of this international institution >created in san Francisco, in 1944. "Circulez bonnes gens". > >I don't think anyone should worry about the fact >that such or such grouping self-appoints to >itself a mandate of delivering a message to the >world. The NMI initiative is right now of the >track of becoming another masquarade. What is >more depressing and concerning is the fact that >IG civil society is totally failing its function and democratic challenge. > >Again, would it be more clever for civil society (as composed today) to >- get together >- see how to best transform the IGF in a useful >forum, looking for becoming a really influential >body ( go and get some funding at ICANN, WEF, >BRAZIL as they look really concerned with the future of Internet) >- keep talking with any table, if this table >wishes to listen, and engage a conversation >(that can be done without endorsing the table). >One can simply wait for the outcome of any given >table. Civil society would always be able to >make its comment. No one here believes that >governments will obey to a statement by a WEF/ICANN/CGIbr. >- Assess its capacity to make progress >- Be transparent about its source of funds (keep >at bay the nice friends trying to twist the dialogue) > >If the current civil society participants are >unable to go in that direction, new participants >will take the lead, and send the not-ables to a >well deserved rest. The new ones will be a bit >more radical, and probably more efficient. > >With ISOC, JNC and others including some US >academics refusing to give a free ride ticket, >this initiative will just meet its destiny. And >so what? What will be the dramatic changes? Be >influential on something that has no >consequence, what's the big deal? Some have >expressed their idea of getting more acquainted >with the "enemy". I don't see WEF as an enemy, >and I don't see why I need to enter their bunker >by the lake with lock doors, video surveillance, >security guards, lacking some sense of >hospitality and welcome to visitors, to better >know what is WEF. It is more than well known to >any honest broker who wishes to get it clear. It >is for example already clear that the WEF vision >of BIG DATA comes in contradiction to what CS is >advocating in terms of protecting rights, and >not just human rights. But why in this thread so >far, no one was really concerned with this? > >On the contrary we might assist to another >terrible mass to praise free-markets to handle >any issues, including the public ones, thanks to >elitist equal footing. "The only thing you don't >want is more regulations" that was said during the GIP conference. > >During the GIF, isolated poor business >representatives complained that corporations >were not included of the Internet governance >debate - a joke! That probably explains why it >was hard for them to give the floor to other participants. > >Let's the divide get bigger, if this is all >what our imagination is allowing us to think >about. Seating 5 cs participants to NMI will >bring nothing to IG. Getting CS together would >bring much more. Let us see what a "democratic >multistakeholderism" will happen to be once the >WEF/ICANN/CGIbr will have had a second thought about it. > >Civil society is now aiming at a level zero of >Politics. And we look like babies. > >"En avoir ou pas" wrote Hemingway. > >JC > > > >Le 21 nov. 2014 à 07:33, Arsene TUNGALI a écrit : > >>Hi there, >> >>Here are my thoughts on this trend. >> >>Civil Society is a stakeholder and it has its >>power as others to influence processes. In my >>life, i learnt to not refuse to be part of a >>process just because i don't share 'some' >>principles from one of the organisers although >>it is something that is important and can have >>a global impact in my own life and the life of >>those i most care about. Instead, i take the >>opportunity to go and try to help them change >>their behaviors. If nothing changes, then i know what to do. >> >>Flavio (CGI) said in the mail Mawaki shared: >>''...So let's try to transform NMI, which is >>still also a vague idea, into something that is >>concrete and useful for the advancement of IG >>and that fully respects the principles >>enshrined in the NETmundial declaration.'' >> >>Let's be part of the NMI but let's also define >>clear points: 'what we will never endorse' and >>'what we need to work on as a CS agenda and >>give it to our 5 representatives'. We do have principles, right? >> >>We are at a big step of the history and not >>being part of this can be something future >>generations will never understand and will >>never forgive. We all know that they will go >>with or without us. Instead, if we go and >>things turn against our principles, then our >>'publicized' leave will have more sense than a >>simple boycott before giving it a try. This is >>a big responsibility and an important decision for the future of CS as a whole. >> >>These are personal views! >> >>Regards, >>A >>------------------ >>Arsene Tungali, >>Executive Director, Rudi International >>www.rudiinternational.org >> >>Founder, Mabingwa Forum >>www.mabingwa-forum.com >>Phone:+243993810967 >> >>ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online >>Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance. >>Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) >> >>Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >>At 21 nov. 2014 07:39:52, Suresh >>Ramasubramanian<'suresh at hserus.net'> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>I can't agree more. The other >>thing is you will definitely find other civil society organizations at the >>table, whatever the local consensus we achieve here is. >> >> >> >>On >>November 21, 2014 10:55:08 AM >>shailam at yahoo.com wrote: >> >>>Hi >>>If >>>we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we are not >>>there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy decisions. >>>Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, the prevailing >>>factor is to be a participating presence. >>>Shaila Rao Mistry >>> >>>Sent from my iPhone >>>On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:35 >>>AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Even within civil society, >>>>include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like >>>>neoliberal >>>>I suppose it is a mercy that >>>>'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On >>>>November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>Dear >>>>>Guru, >>>>> >>>>>​(You >>>>>(Guru) said: ​ >>>>>WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >>>>>seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>>>>Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from >>>>>using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>>>>authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, >>>>>their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the >>>>>information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also >>>>>understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >>>>>extraordinary programme of global >>>>>surveillance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>​If such as strong generalization of big >>>>>business is to be accepted as fair and >>>>>valid, then all those who subscribe >>>>>to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and >>>>>summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that >>>>>Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups - >>>>>Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your >>>>>reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude >>>>>Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance >>>>>must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil >>>>>Society as the only stakeholder group. >>>>>Seriously, i >>>>>f WSIS had committed to build a >>>>>" >>>>>people-centred, inclusive and >>>>>development-oriented Information Society >>>>>​", what happens to >>>>>inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business? >>>>>​ >>>>> >>>>>And, why this hatred for big business? Most >>>>>progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more >>>>>because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the >>>>>information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on >>>>>surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such >>>>>cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced >>>>>by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative >>>>>ways. >>>>>Irrespective >>>>>of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very >>>>>positive development to bring in the WEF >>>>>. >>>>>​ >>>>>WEF >>>>>participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of >>>>>business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might >>>>>by itself act as a balancing influence >>>>>within the corporate world, because >>>>>many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users" >>>>>themselves. >>>>>​Some >>>>>of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is >>>>>needed here is strong support at the moment, and w >>>>>e could >>>>>​eventually >>>>>​ >>>>>work towards a >>>>>greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ >>>>>​ >>>>> >>>>>Sivasubramanian M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Dear Mawaki >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I would like to cite from two sources: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - >>>>>http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html >>>>> >>>>>(the very >>>>>first two clauses) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled >>>>>in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World >>>>>Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and >>>>>commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and >>>>>development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, >>>>>access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling >>>>>individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential >>>>>in promoting their sustainable development and improving their >>>>>quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the >>>>>Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the >>>>>Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>>2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and >>>>>communication technology to promote the development goals of the >>>>>Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty >>>>>and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of >>>>>gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child >>>>>mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS, >>>>>malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; >>>>>and development of global partnerships for development for the >>>>>attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also >>>>>reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable >>>>>development and agreed development goals, as contained in the >>>>>Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the >>>>>Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations >>>>>Summits. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I now will cite from the WEF site - >>>>>http://www.weforum.org/our-members >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Begin >>>>>Our Members >>>>>The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members >>>>>comprise 1,000 of the world’s top corporations, global enterprises >>>>>usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises >>>>>rank among the top companies within their industry and play a >>>>>leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region. >>>>>Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s Strategic and Industry >>>>>Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their >>>>>engagement with the Forum’s events, project and initiatives. The >>>>>Forum’s Members are at the heart of all our activities. >>>>>End >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have >>>>>seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of >>>>>Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart >>>>>from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in >>>>>authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated >>>>>work also is structuring our participation in the information >>>>>society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand >>>>>how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on >>>>>extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in >>>>>their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only >>>>>legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate >>>>>in the NMI. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>thanks and regards >>>>>Guru >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Gurumurthy Kasinathan >>>>>Director, IT for Change >>>>>In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >>>>> >>>>>www.ITforChange.Net| >>>>>Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 >>>>>26654134, >>>>>26536890 >>>>> >>>>>http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>>> > Dear All, >>>>> > >>>>> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't >>>>>repeat >>>>> > the background details. In the middle of the night last >>>>>night, before >>>>> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing >>>>>catch-up with >>>>> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI >>>>> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, >>>>>they are >>>>> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the >>>>>NMI >>>>> > Coordination Council. >>>>> > >>>>> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership >>>>>of CSCG >>>>> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI >>>>>process or >>>>> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations >>>>>we've been >>>>> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and >>>>>with the >>>>> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we >>>>>should be >>>>> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position >>>>>about >>>>> > our participation in the NMI process. >>>>> > >>>>> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be >>>>>brief. >>>>> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement >>>>>and, if >>>>> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you >>>>>if you >>>>> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph >>>>>(as we >>>>> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see >>>>>what I >>>>> > mean.) >>>>> > >>>>> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. >>>>> > >>>>> > Mawaki >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>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: >>>>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: >> 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 > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline > >____________________________________________________________ >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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Nov 21 07:40:34 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:40:34 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <20141121122728.28d36ab1@quill> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <149c7681318.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20141121122728.28d36ab1@quill> Message-ID: <9130B033-D51D-44E9-A083-444CAC99431F@wzb.eu> Personally I don't think this can be discussed on such an abstract level. The IGF, for example, was created in a multilateral environment without a public discussion on how it should be structured. In fact, if there was any public discussion it started after the IGF was created. What I want to say is that there are no generally applicable procedures that would help us out of this messy situation. Jeanette On 21 November 2014 12:27:28 CET, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Shaila Rao Mistry wrote: > >> If we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we >> are not there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy >> decisions. Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, >> the prevailing factor is to be a participating presence. > >When a new discourse venue is needed, shouldn't the process of creating >a new discourse venue start with a public discussion process on how the >new discourse venue should be structured and what its underlying >assumptions and constraints should be? > >If civil society rushes to provide its participating presence, and >hence its legitimizing presence, to just any process, we thereby >destroy a key factor that could lead to the creation of a better kind >of discourse venue where civil society would have not only the >opportunity to be not only a “participating presence” but co-leaders >in discourse processes! > >Greetings, >Norbert -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. From uva.liliana.bounegru at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 08:04:25 2014 From: uva.liliana.bounegru at gmail.com (uva.liliana.bounegru at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:04:25 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] 2nd call: Show Me Your Dashboard - Digital Methods Winter School 2015 - Univ. of Amsterdam Message-ID: This is the second call for participation in the Digital Methods Winter School at the University of Amsterdam, 12-16 January 2015. The deadline for applications is 8 December 2014. Together with Nathaniel Tkacz on dashboard critique (Univ Warwick) and Carolin Gerlitz on social media metrics (Univ Amsterdam), new speakers have confirmed from SumOfUs, UNICEF, TckTckTck, Climate Action Network and the Dutch design agency Clever Franke. We are also joined by the Density Design Lab, Milan. SHOW ME YOUR DASHBOARD New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice Digital Methods Winter School, Data Sprint and Mini-Conference 12-16 January 2015 | Digital Methods Winter School Digital Methods Initiative | http://www.digitalmethods.net/ Media Studies | University of Amsterdam https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/WinterSchool2015 The Digital Methods Initiative (DMI), Amsterdam, is pleased to announce its 7th annual Winter School, on New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice. The format is that of a data sprint, with hands-on work on media monitoring with data analytics, and a Mini-conference, where PhD candidates, motivated scholars and advanced graduate students present short papers on digital methods and new media related topics, and receive feedback from the Amsterdam group of DMI researchers and international participants. Participants need not give a paper at the Mini-conference to attend the Winter School. The focus of this year's Winter School is on how online media monitoring is currently done by non-governmental (NGOs) such as treealerts.org, and it seeks to identify practices that could fill in the notion of critical data analytics. For the occasion we have invited academics to present on the state of the art of online media monitoring by focusing on three areas where there is both innovation as well as repurposing of techniques normally associated with marketing, business intelligence and the work of digital agencies: issue discovery and language placement (who's carrying the conversation), engagement and public fund-raising (when do images and other engagement formats ‘work’?) and crisis communication (who is making the calls when there is a breakdown?). At the Winter School social media analysts and communications specialists from NGOs will present on the state of the art of media monitoring, their current analytical needs and what the Internet can continue to add with respect to new data sources as well as monitoring techniques. We will also ask each of the organizations to show us their dashboards. The first day kicks off with Nathaniel Tkacz from the University of Warwick who will talk about Dashboards and Data Signals, and the desire to control the data deluge. The second keynote speaker is Carolin Gerlitz from the University of Amsterdam who will talk about new media metrics critique. Next a series of online media monitoring dashboards and methods will be presented. The Dutch design agency Clever Franke will show TrendViz. Soenke Lorenzen of Greenpeace International, Eoin Dubsky of SumOfUs, Dounia Kchiere of UNICEF, and Christian Teriete of TckTckTck will be talking about media monitoring at their respective organisations. Next will be project pitches by Ria Voorhaar of the Climate Action Network, Danie Stockmann of Leiden University, Jonathan Gray of the Open Knowledge Foundation, and Alberto Abellan of Social Alto Analytics. After the the first day of talks as well as dashboard show and tell, the data sprint commences, whereupon the attendees, including analysts, designers and programmers, undertake empirical projects that address the state of the art in NGO online media data analysis. We work on projects that seek to meet the current analytical needs. The week closes with presentations of the outcomes as well as a festive celebration. During the week there is also an evening of talks and a debate with Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, at the nearby Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. The theme of the 2015 Winter School furthers the analytical collaboration between the Digital Methods Initiative and NGO media analysts, including Soenke Lorenzen of Greenpeace International. Previously workshop facilitators and collaborators have included representatives from Human Rights Watch, Association for Progressive Communications, Women on Waves, Carbon Trade Watch, Corporate Observatory Europe and Fair Phone. In preparation for the sprint we also have developed how-to worksheets on New Media Monitoring and Tooling that take as their case studies NGO issue mappings with digital methods. Upon conclusion we aim to compile the Sprint projects from the Winter School, and combine them with the how-to sheets to produce an open access publication on NGO media monitoring. All participants are invited to contribute. Digital Methods Winter School Data Sprint A data sprint is a workshop format for intensive, empirical project work, where analysts, programers, designers and subject matter experts collaborate to output research. This year's data sprint is devoted to new media monitoring with data analytics, and particularly its critical practice. Broadly speaking, media monitoring is understood as the process of reading, watching or listening to the editorial content of media sources on a continuing basis, and then identifying, analyzing and saving materials that contain specific themes, topics, keywords, names, forms or formats. Monitoring the editorial content of news sources including newspapers, magazines, trade journals, TV shows, radio programs and specific websites is by far the most common form of media monitoring, but most organizations increasingly monitor social media online, and its impact on the diffusion of news in all media or in online conversation (including the comment space) more generally. Most companies, government agencies, not-for-profit organizations utilize media monitoring as a tool to study the "meaning of mentions" of their organization, its campaigns and slogans, and gain some sense of the composition of their audiences, and what animates them (or keeps them quiet). During the first day of the data sprint academics studying online media monitoring will present the state of the art of the field, focusing on three areas: issue discovery and issue language placement (who is the carrying the conversation, and which voices are continually elided?), engagement and fundraising communication (how are audiences and funders reacting to so-called 'faces of need' and other formats and calls for engagement?) and crisis communication (when there is a breakdown, who makes the calls?). Representatives from leading NGOs will present to the attendees how they practice online media monitoring, the look of their dashboards and the analytical needs that drive them. What are these experts able to accomplish with the techniques available to them, and which questions remain unanswered? What are the critical media monitoring practices and questions that are specific to NGOs? How to conceptualize and operationalize issue discovery, engagement for fundraising and crisis monitoring? We will ask the NGO communications experts to address these questions. We also will ask them what they think digital methods and issue mapping may add to the outputs of media monitoring. The conversations with the experts will serve as starting points for winter school attendees - including analysts, designers and programmers - to develop into empirical projects that aim to answer research questions, and develop further techniques for media monitoring online. Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School The annual Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School, normally a one-day affair, provides the opportunity for digital methods and allied researchers to present short yet complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) and serve as respondents, providing feedback. Often the work presented follows from previous Digital Methods Summer Schools. The mini-conference accepts papers in the general digital methods and allied areas: the hyperlink and other natively digital objects, the website as archived object, web historiographies, search engine critique, Google as globalizing machine, cross-spherical analysis and other approaches to comparative media studies, device cultures, national web studies, Wikipedia as cultural reference, the technicity of (networked) content, post-demographics, platform studies, crawling and scraping, graphing and clouding, and similar. Key dates The deadline for application is 8 December 2014. To apply please send along a letter of motivation as well as your CV to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net, with DMI Winter School in the subject header. Notifications will be sent on 9 December. If you are participating in the Mini-conference the deadline for submission of paper titles, abstracts and bios is also 8 December, with DMI Mini-conference & Winter School in the subject header. Please send your materials to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net . To attend the Winter School, you need not participate in the Mini- conference. Deadline for submission of complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) is 6 January 2015. The program and schedule are available on 7 January. Fees & Logistics The fee for the Digital Methods Winter School 2015 is EUR 295. Bank transfer information will be sent along with the notification on 9 December 2014. The Winter School is self-catered. The venue is in the center of Amsterdam with abundant coffee houses and lunch places. Participants are expected to find their own housing (airbnb and other short-stay sites are helpful). During the week there is an evening at the Royal Academy with Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. The Winter School closes on Friday with a festive event, after the final presentations. Here is a guide to the Amsterdam new media scene. For further questions, please contact the organizers, Liliana Bounegru, Natalia Sanchez and Saskia Kok, at winterschool at digitalmethods.net. About DMI The Digital Methods Winter School is part of the Digital Methods Initiative, Amsterdam, dedicated to reworking method for Internet-related research. The Digital Methods Initiative holds the annual Digital Methods Summer Schools (eight to date), which are intensive and full time 2-week undertakings in the Summertime. The 2015 Summer School will take place 29 June - 10 July 2015. The coordinators of the Digital Methods Initiative are Sabine Niederer and Esther Weltevrede (PhD candidates in New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam), and the director is Richard Rogers, Professor of New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam. Liliana Bounegru is the managing director. Digital methods are online at http://www.digitalmethods.net/. The DMI about page includes a substantive introduction, and also a list of Digital Methods people, with bios. DMI holds occasional Autumn and Spring workshops, such as recent ones on mapping climate change and vulnerability indexes as well as on studying right-wing extremism and populism online. There is also a Digital Methods book (MIT Press, 2013), papers and articles by DMI researchers as well as Digital Methods tools. See you in the winter time in Amsterdam! Image credit: Online resonance of the international climate change issue agenda, EMAPS data sprint, Amsterdam, April 2014. 
This is the second call for participation in the Digital Methods Winter School at the University of Amsterdam, 12-16 January 2015. The deadline for applications is 8 December 2014. Together with Nathaniel Tkacz on dashboard critique (Univ Warwick) and Carolin Gerlitz on social media metrics (Univ Amsterdam), new speakers have confirmed from SumOfUs, UNICEF, TckTckTck, Climate Action Network and the Dutch design agency Clever Franke. We are also joined by the Density Design Lab, Milan. SHOW ME YOUR DASHBOARD New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice Digital Methods Winter School, Data Sprint and Mini-Conference 12-16 January 2015 | Digital Methods Winter School Digital Methods Initiative | http://www.digitalmethods.net/ Media Studies | University of Amsterdam https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/WinterSchool2015 The Digital Methods Initiative (DMI), Amsterdam, is pleased to announce its 7th annual Winter School, on New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice. The format is that of a data sprint, with hands-on work on media monitoring with data analytics, and a Mini-conference, where PhD candidates, motivated scholars and advanced graduate students present short papers on digital methods and new media related topics, and receive feedback from the Amsterdam group of DMI researchers and international participants. Participants need not give a paper at the Mini-conference to attend the Winter School. The focus of this year's Winter School is on how online media monitoring is currently done by non-governmental (NGOs) such as treealerts.org, and it seeks to identify practices that could fill in the notion of critical data analytics. For the occasion we have invited academics to present on the state of the art of online media monitoring by focusing on three areas where there is both innovation as well as repurposing of techniques normally associated with marketing, business intelligence and the work of digital agencies: issue discovery and language placement (who's carrying the conversation), engagement and public fund-raising (when do images and other engagement formats ‘work’?) and crisis communication (who is making the calls when there is a breakdown?). At the Winter School social media analysts and communications specialists from NGOs will present on the state of the art of media monitoring, their current analytical needs and what the Internet can continue to add with respect to new data sources as well as monitoring techniques. We will also ask each of the organizations to show us their dashboards. The first day kicks off with Nathaniel Tkacz from the University of Warwick who will talk about Dashboards and Data Signals, and the desire to control the data deluge. The second keynote speaker is Carolin Gerlitz from the University of Amsterdam who will talk about new media metrics critique. Next a series of online media monitoring dashboards and methods will be presented. The Dutch design agency Clever Franke will show TrendViz. Soenke Lorenzen of Greenpeace International, Eoin Dubsky of SumOfUs, Dounia Kchiere of UNICEF, and Christian Teriete of TckTckTck will be talking about media monitoring at their respective organisations. Next will be project pitches by Ria Voorhaar of the Climate Action Network, Danie Stockmann of Leiden University, Jonathan Gray of the Open Knowledge Foundation, and Alberto Abellan of Social Alto Analytics. After the the first day of talks as well as dashboard show and tell, the data sprint commences, whereupon the attendees, including analysts, designers and programmers, undertake empirical projects that address the state of the art in NGO online media data analysis. We work on projects that seek to meet the current analytical needs. The week closes with presentations of the outcomes as well as a festive celebration. During the week there is also an evening of talks and a debate with Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, at the nearby Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. The theme of the 2015 Winter School furthers the analytical collaboration between the Digital Methods Initiative and NGO media analysts, including Soenke Lorenzen of Greenpeace International. Previously workshop facilitators and collaborators have included representatives from Human Rights Watch, Association for Progressive Communications, Women on Waves, Carbon Trade Watch, Corporate Observatory Europe and Fair Phone. In preparation for the sprint we also have developed how-to worksheets on New Media Monitoring and Tooling that take as their case studies NGO issue mappings with digital methods. Upon conclusion we aim to compile the Sprint projects from the Winter School, and combine them with the how-to sheets to produce an open access publication on NGO media monitoring. All participants are invited to contribute. Digital Methods Winter School Data Sprint A data sprint is a workshop format for intensive, empirical project work, where analysts, programers, designers and subject matter experts collaborate to output research. This year's data sprint is devoted to new media monitoring with data analytics, and particularly its critical practice. Broadly speaking, media monitoring is understood as the process of reading, watching or listening to the editorial content of media sources on a continuing basis, and then identifying, analyzing and saving materials that contain specific themes, topics, keywords, names, forms or formats. Monitoring the editorial content of news sources including newspapers, magazines, trade journals, TV shows, radio programs and specific websites is by far the most common form of media monitoring, but most organizations increasingly monitor social media online, and its impact on the diffusion of news in all media or in online conversation (including the comment space) more generally. Most companies, government agencies, not-for-profit organizations utilize media monitoring as a tool to study the "meaning of mentions" of their organization, its campaigns and slogans, and gain some sense of the composition of their audiences, and what animates them (or keeps them quiet). During the first day of the data sprint academics studying online media monitoring will present the state of the art of the field, focusing on three areas: issue discovery and issue language placement (who is the carrying the conversation, and which voices are continually elided?), engagement and fundraising communication (how are audiences and funders reacting to so-called 'faces of need' and other formats and calls for engagement?) and crisis communication (when there is a breakdown, who makes the calls?). Representatives from leading NGOs will present to the attendees how they practice online media monitoring, the look of their dashboards and the analytical needs that drive them. What are these experts able to accomplish with the techniques available to them, and which questions remain unanswered? What are the critical media monitoring practices and questions that are specific to NGOs? How to conceptualize and operationalize issue discovery, engagement for fundraising and crisis monitoring? We will ask the NGO communications experts to address these questions. We also will ask them what they think digital methods and issue mapping may add to the outputs of media monitoring. The conversations with the experts will serve as starting points for winter school attendees - including analysts, designers and programmers - to develop into empirical projects that aim to answer research questions, and develop further techniques for media monitoring online. Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School The annual Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School, normally a one-day affair, provides the opportunity for digital methods and allied researchers to present short yet complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) and serve as respondents, providing feedback. Often the work presented follows from previous Digital Methods Summer Schools. The mini-conference accepts papers in the general digital methods and allied areas: the hyperlink and other natively digital objects, the website as archived object, web historiographies, search engine critique, Google as globalizing machine, cross-spherical analysis and other approaches to comparative media studies, device cultures, national web studies, Wikipedia as cultural reference, the technicity of (networked) content, post-demographics, platform studies, crawling and scraping, graphing and clouding, and similar. Key dates The deadline for application is 8 December 2014. To apply please send along a letter of motivation as well as your CV to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net, with DMI Winter School in the subject header. Notifications will be sent on 9 December. If you are participating in the Mini-conference the deadline for submission of paper titles, abstracts and bios is also 8 December, with DMI Mini-conference & Winter School in the subject header. Please send your materials to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net . To attend the Winter School, you need not participate in the Mini- conference. Deadline for submission of complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) is 6 January 2015. The program and schedule are available on 7 January. Fees & Logistics The fee for the Digital Methods Winter School 2015 is EUR 295. Bank transfer information will be sent along with the notification on 9 December 2014. The Winter School is self-catered. The venue is in the center of Amsterdam with abundant coffee houses and lunch places. Participants are expected to find their own housing (airbnb and other short-stay sites are helpful). During the week there is an evening at the Royal Academy with Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. The Winter School closes on Friday with a festive event, after the final presentations. Here is a guide to the Amsterdam new media scene. For further questions, please contact the organizers, Liliana Bounegru, Natalia Sanchez and Saskia Kok, at winterschool at digitalmethods.net. About DMI The Digital Methods Winter School is part of the Digital Methods Initiative, Amsterdam, dedicated to reworking method for Internet-related research. The Digital Methods Initiative holds the annual Digital Methods Summer Schools (eight to date), which are intensive and full time 2-week undertakings in the Summertime. The 2015 Summer School will take place 29 June - 10 July 2015. The coordinators of the Digital Methods Initiative are Sabine Niederer and Esther Weltevrede (PhD candidates in New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam), and the director is Richard Rogers, Professor of New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam. Liliana Bounegru is the managing director. Digital methods are online at http://www.digitalmethods.net/. The DMI about page includes a substantive introduction, and also a list of Digital Methods people, with bios. DMI holds occasional Autumn and Spring workshops, such as recent ones on mapping climate change and vulnerability indexes as well as on studying right-wing extremism and populism online. There is also a Digital Methods book (MIT Press, 2013), papers and articles by DMI researchers as well as Digital Methods tools. See you in the winter time in Amsterdam! Image credit: Online resonance of the international climate change issue agenda, EMAPS data sprint, Amsterdam, April 2014. 
This is the second call for participation in the Digital Methods Winter School at the University of Amsterdam, 12-16 January 2015. The deadline for applications is 8 December 2014. Together with Nathaniel Tkacz on dashboard critique (Univ Warwick) and Carolin Gerlitz on social media metrics (Univ Amsterdam), new speakers have confirmed from SumOfUs, UNICEF, TckTckTck, Climate Action Network and the Dutch design agency Clever Franke. We are also joined by the Density Design Lab, Milan. SHOW ME YOUR DASHBOARD New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice Digital Methods Winter School, Data Sprint and Mini-Conference 12-16 January 2015 | Digital Methods Winter School Digital Methods Initiative | http://www.digitalmethods.net/ Media Studies | University of Amsterdam https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/WinterSchool2015 The Digital Methods Initiative (DMI), Amsterdam, is pleased to announce its 7th annual Winter School, on New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice. The format is that of a data sprint, with hands-on work on media monitoring with data analytics, and a Mini-conference, where PhD candidates, motivated scholars and advanced graduate students present short papers on digital methods and new media related topics, and receive feedback from the Amsterdam group of DMI researchers and international participants. Participants need not give a paper at the Mini-conference to attend the Winter School. The focus of this year's Winter School is on how online media monitoring is currently done by non-governmental (NGOs) such as treealerts.org, and it seeks to identify practices that could fill in the notion of critical data analytics. For the occasion we have invited academics to present on the state of the art of online media monitoring by focusing on three areas where there is both innovation as well as repurposing of techniques normally associated with marketing, business intelligence and the work of digital agencies: issue discovery and language placement (who's carrying the conversation), engagement and public fund-raising (when do images and other engagement formats ‘work’?) and crisis communication (who is making the calls when there is a breakdown?). At the Winter School social media analysts and communications specialists from NGOs will present on the state of the art of media monitoring, their current analytical needs and what the Internet can continue to add with respect to new data sources as well as monitoring techniques. We will also ask each of the organizations to show us their dashboards. The first day kicks off with Nathaniel Tkacz from the University of Warwick who will talk about Dashboards and Data Signals, and the desire to control the data deluge. The second keynote speaker is Carolin Gerlitz from the University of Amsterdam who will talk about new media metrics critique. Next a series of online media monitoring dashboards and methods will be presented. The Dutch design agency Clever Franke will show TrendViz. Soenke Lorenzen of Greenpeace International, Eoin Dubsky of SumOfUs, Dounia Kchiere of UNICEF, and Christian Teriete of TckTckTck will be talking about media monitoring at their respective organisations. Next will be project pitches by Ria Voorhaar of the Climate Action Network, Danie Stockmann of Leiden University, Jonathan Gray of the Open Knowledge Foundation, and Alberto Abellan of Social Alto Analytics. After the the first day of talks as well as dashboard show and tell, the data sprint commences, whereupon the attendees, including analysts, designers and programmers, undertake empirical projects that address the state of the art in NGO online media data analysis. We work on projects that seek to meet the current analytical needs. The week closes with presentations of the outcomes as well as a festive celebration. During the week there is also an evening of talks and a debate with Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, at the nearby Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. The theme of the 2015 Winter School furthers the analytical collaboration between the Digital Methods Initiative and NGO media analysts, including Soenke Lorenzen of Greenpeace International. Previously workshop facilitators and collaborators have included representatives from Human Rights Watch, Association for Progressive Communications, Women on Waves, Carbon Trade Watch, Corporate Observatory Europe and Fair Phone. In preparation for the sprint we also have developed how-to worksheets on New Media Monitoring and Tooling that take as their case studies NGO issue mappings with digital methods. Upon conclusion we aim to compile the Sprint projects from the Winter School, and combine them with the how-to sheets to produce an open access publication on NGO media monitoring. All participants are invited to contribute. Digital Methods Winter School Data Sprint A data sprint is a workshop format for intensive, empirical project work, where analysts, programers, designers and subject matter experts collaborate to output research. This year's data sprint is devoted to new media monitoring with data analytics, and particularly its critical practice. Broadly speaking, media monitoring is understood as the process of reading, watching or listening to the editorial content of media sources on a continuing basis, and then identifying, analyzing and saving materials that contain specific themes, topics, keywords, names, forms or formats. Monitoring the editorial content of news sources including newspapers, magazines, trade journals, TV shows, radio programs and specific websites is by far the most common form of media monitoring, but most organizations increasingly monitor social media online, and its impact on the diffusion of news in all media or in online conversation (including the comment space) more generally. Most companies, government agencies, not-for-profit organizations utilize media monitoring as a tool to study the "meaning of mentions" of their organization, its campaigns and slogans, and gain some sense of the composition of their audiences, and what animates them (or keeps them quiet). During the first day of the data sprint academics studying online media monitoring will present the state of the art of the field, focusing on three areas: issue discovery and issue language placement (who is the carrying the conversation, and which voices are continually elided?), engagement and fundraising communication (how are audiences and funders reacting to so-called 'faces of need' and other formats and calls for engagement?) and crisis communication (when there is a breakdown, who makes the calls?). Representatives from leading NGOs will present to the attendees how they practice online media monitoring, the look of their dashboards and the analytical needs that drive them. What are these experts able to accomplish with the techniques available to them, and which questions remain unanswered? What are the critical media monitoring practices and questions that are specific to NGOs? How to conceptualize and operationalize issue discovery, engagement for fundraising and crisis monitoring? We will ask the NGO communications experts to address these questions. We also will ask them what they think digital methods and issue mapping may add to the outputs of media monitoring. The conversations with the experts will serve as starting points for winter school attendees - including analysts, designers and programmers - to develop into empirical projects that aim to answer research questions, and develop further techniques for media monitoring online. Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School The annual Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School, normally a one-day affair, provides the opportunity for digital methods and allied researchers to present short yet complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) and serve as respondents, providing feedback. Often the work presented follows from previous Digital Methods Summer Schools. The mini-conference accepts papers in the general digital methods and allied areas: the hyperlink and other natively digital objects, the website as archived object, web historiographies, search engine critique, Google as globalizing machine, cross-spherical analysis and other approaches to comparative media studies, device cultures, national web studies, Wikipedia as cultural reference, the technicity of (networked) content, post-demographics, platform studies, crawling and scraping, graphing and clouding, and similar. Key dates The deadline for application is 8 December 2014. To apply please send along a letter of motivation as well as your CV to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net, with DMI Winter School in the subject header. Notifications will be sent on 9 December. If you are participating in the Mini-conference the deadline for submission of paper titles, abstracts and bios is also 8 December, with DMI Mini-conference & Winter School in the subject header. Please send your materials to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net . To attend the Winter School, you need not participate in the Mini- conference. Deadline for submission of complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) is 6 January 2015. The program and schedule are available on 7 January. Fees & Logistics The fee for the Digital Methods Winter School 2015 is EUR 295. Bank transfer information will be sent along with the notification on 9 December 2014. The Winter School is self-catered. The venue is in the center of Amsterdam with abundant coffee houses and lunch places. Participants are expected to find their own housing (airbnb and other short-stay sites are helpful). During the week there is an evening at the Royal Academy with Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. The Winter School closes on Friday with a festive event, after the final presentations. Here is a guide to the Amsterdam new media scene. For further questions, please contact the organizers, Liliana Bounegru, Natalia Sanchez and Saskia Kok, at winterschool at digitalmethods.net. About DMI The Digital Methods Winter School is part of the Digital Methods Initiative, Amsterdam, dedicated to reworking method for Internet-related research. The Digital Methods Initiative holds the annual Digital Methods Summer Schools (eight to date), which are intensive and full time 2-week undertakings in the Summertime. The 2015 Summer School will take place 29 June - 10 July 2015. The coordinators of the Digital Methods Initiative are Sabine Niederer and Esther Weltevrede (PhD candidates in New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam), and the director is Richard Rogers, Professor of New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam. Liliana Bounegru is the managing director. Digital methods are online at http://www.digitalmethods.net/. The DMI about page includes a substantive introduction, and also a list of Digital Methods people, with bios. DMI holds occasional Autumn and Spring workshops, such as recent ones on mapping climate change and vulnerability indexes as well as on studying right-wing extremism and populism online. There is also a Digital Methods book (MIT Press, 2013), papers and articles by DMI researchers as well as Digital Methods tools. See you in the winter time in Amsterdam! Image credit: Online resonance of the international climate change issue agenda, EMAPS data sprint, Amsterdam, April 2014. From joao.caribe at me.com Fri Nov 21 13:18:04 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:18:04 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <6D5B122A-4314-44C9-8EC4-7A611B89940E@me.com> NMI published a new statement answering some questions https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-answers-common-questions Em 20/11/2014, às 22:29, JFC Morfin escreveu: > >> >> 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. > > Please reread my mails of the time. Do you really think a few Civil Society activists and non-architect engineers from the IETF would reshape the world alone. There is only one way to lead the world: power and force. However, you do not want to manage to get it. > > Force is a better technology. This means competent, innovative, experienced work. > Power is that technology to be used. This means political cooperation or financial support. > > As long as you do not want Libre, you do not want Govs and you do not want WEF, you can keep moaning. > > The situation is simple. It has not changed since August 22, 2012 (RFC 6852, IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C declaration). Either we stay with the old non-secure IETF technology that ICANN, Rosettanet, BRICS and WEF can do with. Or we rebuild a "secure internet" as partly demanded by IAB through a Libre/Civil Society coalition - not necessarily under the NSA/USCC. > > Our interest is NOT to dispute political ideas, not to arbitrate between ICANN/WEF and ISOC/IETF. Our interest is to intelligently look at our own IUsers interests. i.e. for a fail-safe plan four our net > > jfc > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 13:18:51 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:18:51 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> Message-ID: <02d501d005b7$9a70c460$cf524d20$@gmail.com> Hmmm... Speaking of despicable personal attacks... My point to Anriette (and everyone) is that there is a fundamental contradiction between an alignment with the WEF which is well known as a central facilitator for the 1% as for example, through participation/legitimation of the NMI and the pursuit of social justice. I fully recognize and have had long experience and admiration from a community informatics perspective with the social justice roots of APC hence my questioning and disappointment at seeing however conflicted, the pro NMI (WEF) position that was advocated by Anriette although I'm not as yet sure whether or not this is the final position from APC as a whole. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:47 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) On 21/11/2014 5:22 am, Norbert Bollow wrote: > JNC certainly has every intention of working hard to convince many of > those who are currently unconvinced of the importance and feasibility > of making Internet governance democratic. Greetings, Norbert Whilst such evangelical zeal is - I suppose - admirable, do you really think that is going to be productive, rather than just compounding the discord you have already caused? As you know full well, none of those whom you are addressing accept for a moment that their ideal of multi-stakeholder Internet governance is undemocratic, as JNC insists it is. Neither are they naïve babes in the wood who haven't fully thought through their positions, over in some cases a decade or longer. I can assure you that there will not be some sudden transformation, as along the road to Damascus, where the scales fall from our eyes and we convert to the JNC ideology, if only you berate us about our sins for long enough. I am not saying that there is no value in you developing a socialist critique of emerging multi-stakeholder global governance norms for which others are advocating. But recognise that your audience for that critique is always going to be limited, and you are not going to win over hearts and minds with these continued personal attacks - you are only going to continue to alienate people. The rather quite despicable slur that Michael levied against Anriette and APC about not being concerned with social justice is a paradigm example of this - I'm not claiming that it alienated Anriette and I certainly don't expect that it will silence her, but it may certainly alienate and silence others who respect her and APC's many years of selfless service. As Ian alluded to in a recent mail, what you are doing is simply driving people away, either completely out of the conversation, or at least into a stated of cowed silence where they afraid to voice their opinions. If ever you seem to have "won" the debate, it will only be because they are frightened to contribute to it for fear of retribution, or because they have moved their discussions to closed lists where you are not present (indeed this is already happening). JNC needs to have a long, hard think about whether this is what you really want. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 21 18:02:02 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:02:02 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC perspective on making Internet governance democratic (was Re: URGENT: Last call...) In-Reply-To: <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <1486537673.7522.1416390999726.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f29> <4D5FE9B9-60E9-4AE4-BC19-5A72B08E78A6@orange.fr> <146A4EC5-F62D-421E-98FB-E21C3CA21380@difference.com.au> <20141121142258.798a81b9@quill> <546F7AA5.2050000@eff.org> Message-ID: <3c72125f6eaa37ee3efdcf34dca67479.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > On 21/11/2014 5:22 am, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> JNC certainly has every intention of working hard to convince many of >> those who are currently unconvinced of the importance and feasibility >> of making Internet governance democratic. Greetings, Norbert > > Whilst such evangelical zeal is - I suppose - admirable, do you really > think that is going to be productive, rather than just compounding the > discord you have already caused? As you know full well, none of those > whom you are addressing accept for a moment that their ideal of > multi-stakeholder Internet governance is undemocratic, as JNC insists it > is. Simple claims matter little. Lets put the proposition that your (and your associates') style multi-stakeholderism is democratic (or not) to a simple practical check. Do you *not* advocate a system for dealing with global Internet related public policies whereby corporates will have a veto on agenda shaping - meaning on letting an issue go on the agenda or not? Do you think such a clear veto to corporates in determining the agenda of public policy formation is democratic? I firmly believe that such a system is undemocratic. JNCs believes so too. And all people, groups and political theorists that I know believe, or would believe, such a practice to be definitely undemocratic. parminder ( I write this email without prejudice to my views and action reg the obnoxious emails that Jeremy wrote recently calling either an individual or a coalition as 'acting like a dick' and then declaring that the elist was off territory for "JNC pathologies". ) > > Neither are they naïve babes in the wood who haven't fully thought > through their positions, over in some cases a decade or longer. I can > assure you that there will not be some sudden transformation, as along > the road to Damascus, where the scales fall from our eyes and we convert > to the JNC ideology, if only you berate us about our sins for long enough. > > I am not saying that there is no value in you developing a socialist > critique of emerging multi-stakeholder global governance norms for which > others are advocating. But recognise that your audience for that > critique is always going to be limited, and you are not going to win > over hearts and minds with these continued personal attacks - you are > only going to continue to alienate people. > > The rather quite despicable slur that Michael levied against Anriette > and APC about not being concerned with social justice is a paradigm > example of this - I'm not claiming that it alienated Anriette and I > certainly don't expect that it will silence her, but it may certainly > alienate and silence others who respect her and APC's many years of > selfless service. > > As Ian alluded to in a recent mail, what you are doing is simply driving > people away, either completely out of the conversation, or at least into > a stated of cowed silence where they afraid to voice their opinions. If > ever you seem to have "won" the debate, it will only be because they are > frightened to contribute to it for fear of retribution, or because they > have moved their discussions to closed lists where you are not present > (indeed this is already happening). > > JNC needs to have a long, hard think about whether this is what you > really want. > > -- > 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 francisco at verahott.com Fri Nov 21 18:36:26 2014 From: francisco at verahott.com (Francisco Vera Hott) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:36:26 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <6D5B122A-4314-44C9-8EC4-7A611B89940E@me.com> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> <6D5B122A-4314-44C9-8EC4-7A611B89940E@me.com> Message-ID: <546FCC7A.5020701@verahott.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 These past 2-3 days we have been surrounding this discussion over whether to participate in NETmundial initiative, in this and other threads (which I will not refer). It is clear that the idea of participating on the NetMundial initiative remains conflicting or doubtful for many list members, for different reasons, such as the WEF role, the participation of Civil Society, the permanent seats, or the "UN Security Council" arguments. Whatever it is, I haven't (or failed to) seen yet an assessment of the need for such initiative. I don't see an Internet Governance forums/venues/initiatives shortage anytime soon, and more and more platform, mailing lists and many other initiatives can be useful but also distracting for the limited resources that civil society (and other stakeholders) has. Decentralizing the debate is OK, but this is becoming more and more overwhelming and, thus, impossible to follow or over demanding for many organizations. This NMI could also be an opportunity for civil society but given ISOC, ICANN and other's positioning, it is also a matter of validation and legitimacy, so civil society participation is equally important for both parties, not precisely a once in a lifetime opportunity. Finally, I've read some comments on democracy and social justice and while I have sympathy for those values, civil society doesn't exercise political representation nor have or should have a common agenda regarding all social values. It is just as strong as its positions and integrity. Best, Francisco Vera Hott Human Rights Lawyer El 21-11-14 a las 15:18, "João Carlos R. Caribé" escribió: > NMI published a new statement answering some questions > https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-answers-common-questions > > > > > > Em 20/11/2014, às 22:29, JFC Morfin escreveu: > >> >>>>> 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. >> >> Please reread my mails of the time. Do you really think a few >> Civil Society activists and non-architect engineers from the IETF >> would reshape the world alone. There is only one way to lead the >> world: power and force. However, you do not want to manage to get >> it. >> >> Force is a better technology. This means competent, innovative, >> experienced work. Power is that technology to be used. This means >> political cooperation or financial support. >> >> As long as you do not want Libre, you do not want Govs and you do >> not want WEF, you can keep moaning. >> >> The situation is simple. It has not changed since August 22, 2012 >> (RFC 6852, IEEE, IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C declaration). Either we >> stay with the old non-secure IETF technology that ICANN, >> Rosettanet, BRICS and WEF can do with. Or we rebuild a "secure >> internet" as partly demanded by IAB through a Libre/Civil Society >> coalition - not necessarily under the NSA/USCC. >> >> Our interest is NOT to dispute political ideas, not to arbitrate >> between ICANN/WEF and ISOC/IETF. Our interest is to intelligently >> look at our own IUsers interests. i.e. for a fail-safe plan four >> our net >> >> jfc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 > > -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUb8x6AAoJEErHcCx+E9J6j/UP/R8FuKSCLnm8kWTf4H2lyqPN 8sCtCS2x1njOrUzAK7JsKZbxIR4Ej9e+DnJ12nXx75RYMvLLC4XXmoTASdPbF0tV nseK2/hxPTHrIWvkuetPYvEqFMEVt/QLim2A1wFtLx97wT63eDWolMj+78tr59hi ktPefoW79+j5N6t1N8osah4+MwVU2ra8rMLYBZZA5LnZpOpfE/by8ANr7AkeWwQG oNfoQu8xRBeAmVtwBsx6Nj8CWWEe+rzVdYgsmxQatf7c/eAORvWt90iAXH//G2aC 44CNVWa6vTA+ZhW07jIN/Bt/eCimae7sylsmsLrZ07DH0GV1LF7p2mb0EKJ/NBAU g0hDkr8+xU8C1MDWjrqAJREcePkNTb4fFqsQGkpc9/dLSyAhKiOKS+1LOihgGHzj g+Pf3tT3GV24+rAlGftNVNTn0lbJiJersZQtYrvDRPX5aQofTkCUs472DtVtxvxU 5qUgV2KhN1XPKkSZKLe51Ka1UV1shGMvduEkl9ydVtFEgk/e6fUzhbo2AqPnt1rZ VIDD6FPUSUHaM1oOAsXYsBu+kCyTk5L8c09UJ0CklZofweshG7fKmT3h49yI4VWM c6I6U1AIc1MaB/4Fe/I9wdWWvKJoQHyxPNPmLCM6MOarxYwObnY1Ceuo2Xc+wN8J ub1hTinh16Pqg4sLE90f =J8KN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 21 18:42:03 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:42:03 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > Thanks Nnenna. > > Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of opinion. Ian But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members. In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world. parminder > > 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 > 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 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 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 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____________________________________________________________ > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 21 19:16:07 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:16:07 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought some of Jeremys comments were over the top too. If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute depression as a result. I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or not trying to) convey. Ian -----Original Message----- From: parminder at itforchange.net Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; 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. Ian But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members. In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world. parminder > > 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 > 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 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 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 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____________________________________________________________ > 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 Sat Nov 1 15:33:03 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:33:03 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8E30@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> References: ,<297c01cff5fb$3e394210$baabc630$@gmail.com> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F8E30@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <2a0701cff60a$a7935430$f6b9fc90$@gmail.com> Erik and all, I’ve always preferred the formulation of “open and inclusive”/”openness and inclusion”… http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/does-inclusion-matter-for-open-government-the-answer-is-very-much-indeed/ M From: JOSEFSSON Erik [mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 11:07 AM To: michael gurstein; 'David Cake'; 'Best Bits'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) 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 . 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] 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] 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] . 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] , 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] In a different strand of its case-law, the General Court has referred to the "principle of the right to information" [11] , and to the "principle of transparency" [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] 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] 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] . 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] In a recent judgment of 25 June 2013, for the case of Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia,[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] 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] . 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] . 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] . 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] : "’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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 20:37:36 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 21:37:36 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: Did Wikileaks and Snowden hit us so hard that we stopped trusting each other as well as "them", the ones who are watching us all the time, the ones we thought we could trust? The Istanbul IGC face to face meeting, which didn't happen, (my fault, I was so busy I forgot to send reminders and there was also a confusion about the room,) ended up with three of us - Nnenna, Anja and myself, and Mawaki waiting at the other end of a skype connection. (Thank you to those who came and to all of you who apologised for not turning up). We chatted while we were waiting, nothing formal, just brainstorming about the IGC and its troubles. We came to the conclusion that initially the IGC brought many different views to the table, but in an atmosphere of mutual respect. The tension, the quarrel if you like, was between the different view points, not between the different members. People brought their own ideas, but they also brought a willingness to listen. The atmosphere was positive, negotiation towards common ground in so far as that was possible. (Not all of the time of course - IGC members are as human as anyone else, but mostly) Somewhere that got lost, and the trust that had enabled to group to work together in spite of many differences just disappeared. And a huge rift drained strength from the civil society lobby. Trusting is fairly easy to do at the beginning of a relationship, almost automatic. But if that initial trust is lost then it becomes really hard work requiring a great deal of self-control to rebuild it. We should ask ourselves whether we have the energy to rebuild that trust, because without it I don't think we're going to get very far. Rather more than two cents worth Deirdre On 21 November 2014 20:16, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate > - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought > some of Jeremys comments were over the top too. > > If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the > noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute > depression as a result. > > I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been > critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to > anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or > not trying to) convey. > > Ian > > -----Original Message----- From: parminder at itforchange.net > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; 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. >> > > Ian > > But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather > erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious > utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a > long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN > Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on > JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general > abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members. > > In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a > political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on > social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an > overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world. > > parminder > > > > >> 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 >> 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 >> 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 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 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_________________ >> ___________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Nov 22 01:19:54 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:19:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> Peter, I think it would be appropriate to gently refrain subscribers from falling into personal attack, or in abusively labeling others' opinion or view, discriminating any one for its citizenship, religion... Calling to refrain might not lead to more attack, but maybe cool down minds. At least, it is worth the try. As many have said, to start with Deirdre, the pathway back to trust will come from courtesy and respect of the one another, and from acceptance of diversity of views. In any democratic system, a vote ends the fight and everyone has to accept the result. Within these different lists, we all know that too much time is wasted in "process regarding nominations". This cannot be a surprise, because most of the time there is no clear cut principle to "end" the debate. A few +1, the "temperature of the room", the "wet finger", all of that does not help and are more or less pre- democratic (not yet democratic). When it comes to code, rough consensus can work because you have something that everyone can see working "better" than the other suggested technical options. When it comes to ethics or politics, no one can really say if the decision drives into something that "work". Every time such processes are conducted, they result in an addition of distrust. And because the debate here is not about technical norms, it is hard to imagine that pre-democratic processes can lead to a "democratic multistakeholder" as called by the Net Mundial conclusion in Sao Paulo, anytime soon. But we can still try of course. If respect is part of the story that could help. JC Le 22 nov. 2014 à 01:16, Ian Peter a écrit : > Hi Parminder, > > I could probably name about a dozen people - on both sides of this debate - who have reduced this discussion to personal attacks. And yes I thought some of Jeremys comments were over the top too. > > If I wrote on list every time this happened I would only be adding to the noise rather than trying to reduce it. And would probably suffer from acute depression as a result. > > I think if you look at my postings over a few years where I have been critical of personal attacks you will see that they have been directed to anyone involved, irrespective of the policy stance they were trying to (or not trying to) convey. > > Ian > > -----Original Message----- From: parminder at itforchange.net > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:42 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma ; michael gurstein ; 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. > > Ian > > But is it not that your passion for advocating tolerance fires rather > erratically, you having entirely missed some rather sustained obnoxious > utterances from your friend Jeremy, along with whom you have been for a > long time now making a strong case that civil society joins the WEF MN > Initiative? And also David Cake, who has all kinds of definitive views on > JNC's positions - that I myself have no knowledge of, and on the general > abilities, including academic and intellectual, of JNC members. > > In contrast, Michael’s somewhat rhetorically styled posing makes a > political point of how going with WEF can be seen as compromising on > social justice considerations - which is a political view shared by an > overwhelming number of civil society people and groups all over the world. > > parminder > > > >> >> 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 >> 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 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 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 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____________________________________________________________ >> 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: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Nov 22 09:51:33 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:51:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nothing to do with internet governance or NMI WAS Re: [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <52A7F924-918D-4166-865B-2CAF69EAA78B@theglobaljournal.net> McTim, Would it be so? Maybe we can spare the lists? If you wish to talk to me privately about why I came to such conclusions (for both), I am ready to have a conversation with you. JC Le 22 nov. 2014 à 15:22, McTim a écrit : > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Peter, > > I think it would be appropriate to gently refrain subscribers from falling into personal attack, or in abusively labeling others' opinion or view, discriminating any one for its citizenship, religion... Calling to refrain might not lead to more attack, but maybe cool down minds. > > Yet in the last few days, you have made these 2 personal attacks: > > "(At least we know you are no democrat)" > > "this is insane and dangerous thinking" > > In reply to an obvious factual assertion. Perhaps you might think about retracting those comments and moderating your tone before you ask that others refrain from falling into personal attacks. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From avri at acm.org Sat Nov 22 14:22:04 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:22:04 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] [] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <546FCC7A.5020701@verahott.com> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> <6D5B122A-4314-44C9-8EC4-7A611B89940E@me.com> <546FCC7A.5020701@verahott.com> Message-ID: <5470E25C.2020902@acm.org> Hi, On 22-Nov-14 03:36, Francisco Vera Hott wrote: > or the "UN Security Council" arguments. I understand what they were doing trying to build a core team, a remnant of the earlier champions idea, though I think it was inappropriate and backfired. What I do not understand is how the security council equivalence could be imagined - there was no notion of veto anywhere in the concepts I read. I think that was a bit a FUD that showed up in the shock blogs, that too many accepted as a reasonable stance on what was being proposed. I think that the JNC took a principled stance. I disagree with it and think it premature, but I can see it as a thought out position that fits within the concept of the CSCG. I think ISOC should be praised for refusing a special seat and for continuing to consult with the NMI folks. It we think we are going to stop this by holding our breath until they go away, we may just find ourselves excluding ourselves from something that will then be able to go its own way without every giving our various points of view a chance. And we will miss a chance to move the NMI toward the multistakeholder participatory democratic idea so many of us are dedicated to - no matter which terms we use or eschew at any point in time. There is a large segment of civil society that is not part of this little bubble of ours, so we should not fool ourselves into thinking that our refusal is the master switch of legitimization. Civil society will take part, of that I have no doubt, it just may not be this part of civil society. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sat Nov 22 14:31:37 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 19:31:37 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <5470E25C.2020902@acm.org> References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <546E2B0E.6020708@cafonso.ca> <6D5B122A-4314-44C9-8EC4-7A611B89940E@me.com> <546FCC7A.5020701@verahott.com> <5470E25C.2020902@acm.org> Message-ID: Minus "fooling ourselves" (because everyone has a right to an opinion) +1 Nnenna On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > On 22-Nov-14 03:36, Francisco Vera Hott wrote: > > or the "UN Security Council" arguments. > > I understand what they were doing trying to build a core team, a remnant > of the earlier champions idea, though I think it was inappropriate and > backfired. What I do not understand is how the security council > equivalence could be imagined - there was no notion of veto anywhere in the > concepts I read. I think that was a bit a FUD that showed up in the shock > blogs, that too many accepted as a reasonable stance on what was being > proposed. > > I think that the JNC took a principled stance. I disagree with it and > think it premature, but I can see it as a thought out position that fits > within the concept of the CSCG. I think ISOC should be praised for > refusing a special seat and for continuing to consult with the NMI folks. > > It we think we are going to stop this by holding our breath until they go > away, we may just find ourselves excluding ourselves from something that > will then be able to go its own way without every giving our various points > of view a chance. And we will miss a chance to move the NMI toward the > multistakeholder participatory democratic idea so many of us are dedicated > to - no matter which terms we use or eschew at any point in time. There is > a large segment of civil society that is not part of this little bubble of > ours, so we should not fool ourselves into thinking that our refusal is > the master switch of legitimization. Civil society will take part, of that > I have no doubt, it just may not be this part of civil society. > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 22 14:38:19 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 06:38:19 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br Message-ID: <254071EE316C4592AB4B95AD4A660A99@Toshiba> -----Original Message----- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 5:35 AM To: Hartmut Glaser Subject: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br To all of you directly and indirectly involved with the lively debate that has been observed within the Internet governance circles surrounding the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), would like to clarify the following: 1)There are two main reasons for CGI.br to embark on the NETmundial Initiative. a) CGI.br is moved by a strong, crystal-clear and well known commitment to the preservation, the promotion and the implementation of the principles and the roadmap that were adopted in São Paulo during the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance - NETmundial. As long as CGI.br is involved in any activity, process or institution related to the global governance of the Internet, there will be a group of 21 board members representatives of the broader Internet community in Brazil, assisted by a deeply committed Secretariat, working for the promotion of the achievements of the NETmundial meeting earlier this year.Instead of watching from a distant perspective the different processes and environments that comprise the complex distributed IG ecosystem, CGI.br members have been actively engaged with a myriad of other stakeholders and the community as a whole in the different spaces within which Internet governance is dealt with. CGI.br is committed to raise a voice whenever there can by any unjustified reversion on the thresholds set by NETmundial for Internet governance, namely: collaboration, openness, transparency, and multistakeholderism by default. b) Brazil is to host the 2015 IGF. CGI.br is closely working with the Brazilian government in order to assure that the 10th edition of the IGF yields all the results that were normatively set by the community in 2014 in different occasions: the renewal of its mandate in the UNGA later this year; the strengthening of its role as the focal point for the community; the assurance of funding sources, and the harmonization of activities of the IGF with the different initiatives that are sprouting (nationally, regionally, and globally) since the Community issued the NETmundial Statement. 2) From its inception, CGI.br has been willing to dialogue and of work together with every single member of the Community who is willing to promote, reflect upon, strengthen, and enhance multistakeholderism. The NMI is one among those efforts and can contribute to those goals by publicizing ideas and connecting people from all over the world using a single Web platform. Anything additional to the development and the maintenance of the platform shall be a result of the Initiative after it is set up. Bearing that in mind, on behalf of all of the members of the Board of CGI.br, we would like to invite all stakeholders to join the effort of building NMI based on the spirit and the aspirations of the community in a collaborative manner. 3) The NETmundial Initiative is in its formation. The whole institutionalization of NMI shall be community-driven. That is why the Transitional Council, as soon as it got a request from the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), accepted to work together with the CSCG to come up with a solution for defining Civil Society names for the NMI Council by consensus and fully respecting the indications of Civil Society. It is important to say that CGI.br is pretty confident that if any other group of stakeholders approach the Transition Council with similar solutions to strengthen the process, the Council will be willingly open to recognize and implement them as a way of putting the community at the center of the process of shaping the ulterior composition of the NMI Council. Finally, let us reaffirm that CGI.br would never agree with top-down, closed decision-making processes that could possibly undermine its legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. It is up for the community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. Best regards, Virgílio Almeida Coordinator of the Board of the CGI.br - Representative nominated by the Federal Government Demi Getschko Member of the Board of CGI.br, nominated as Internet Expert Carlos A. Afonso Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the Third Sector Flávio Wagner Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the scientific and technological community and Selected member for the MAG/IGF 2015 Eduardo Parajo Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the business sector - Internet access and content providers Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary of the Board of the CGI.br From joly at punkcast.com Sat Nov 22 15:44:45 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:44:45 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <254071EE316C4592AB4B95AD4A660A99@Toshiba> References: <254071EE316C4592AB4B95AD4A660A99@Toshiba> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > -----Original Message----- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 5:35 AM > A message from the future? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Nov 22 17:34:22 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 14:34:22 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> Message-ID: <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; The Brazilian government and CGI.Br (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee) has a huge amount of political capital, earned from the progressive global stances of Brazil over the years, and an unique pluralist and participatory domestic model for dealing with technical and administrative functions related to the Internet embodied in CGI.Br. It was due to this immense political capital, and the fact that the Brazilian President took such a clear and strong stance against US's surveillance of the whole world, that the world backed Brazil when it decided to to take up leadership to explore a new path for global governance of the Internet. One is of course speaking here of the NetMundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Although the meeting was visibly taken over by ICANN in many ways, including foisting someone who has no civil society record as the civil society leader for the meeting, the world at large stood by Brazil and accepted that it had acted in good faith and has global public interest at its heart. This is despite and apart from the fact that NetMundial outcomes had a very mixed reception among progressive civil society and developing country government. However, when one spends its political capital, it dips, like any other capital. Brazil's ambivalence over the post NetMundial months at global forums on what really was its plan for the kind of institutional transformation that its President first spoke of at the famous UN speech has been noted with considerable disappointment. (While its work at the Human Rights Council to bring privacy related resolutions has been welcomed.) Many people, however, have still been willing to give Brazil the benefit of doubt, given that it has been in the middle of a difficult presidential election. However, its support to a World Economic Forum centred global political initiative for global governance of the Internet would shift the balance, perhaps decisively. This would be extremely unfortunate. Brazil greatly risks losing its position of global trust and leadership among the progressive global actors, and I just hope people directly involved with these unseemly forays understand this long term danger. I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now come out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN (basically doing US's bidding) game. One good proof of this fact is that CGI.Br was sought to be co-opted only when the earlier effort failed in August- September 2014. Why do they expect everyone to be so naïve so as to not get the obvious point; CGI.Br has been pulled in simply to give cover to what is essentially a global governance plan led by the global elite, which is what the WEF represents. Friends from the CGI.Br, have you not read the WEF documents about their vision of global governance of the Internet, which we have briefly quoted in the JNC statement ? Do you feel no need to respond to these issues? What is the basis for you to think that just because they have, belatedly, invited you to join it, they will change their spots, from being what everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic and political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the global level! Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great loss, and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance initiative.* There is still time. Please withdraw from supporting the WEF-ICANN initiative, which is a foray towards very dangerous directions, and could even be historic in its damaging impact on global democracy. Focus instead on gathering a more public interest oriented set of global actors to take forward what was initiated by the Brazilian President's historic speech at the UN last year, however imperfect has the journey been since then. Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let us deal with this huge responsibility with adequate care and foresight. History would be a harsh judge if we do not, as is my opinion it would be on the Brazilians rooting for an WEF centred global governance system if you do not pull back even now. With sincere regards, parminder > > To all of you directly and indirectly involved with the lively debate > that has been observed within the Internet governance circles > surrounding the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), would like to clarify the > following: > > 1)There are two main reasons for CGI.br to embark on the NETmundial > Initiative. > > a) CGI.br is moved by a strong, crystal-clear and well known commitment > to the preservation, the promotion and the implementation of the > principles and the roadmap that were adopted in São Paulo during the > Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance - > NETmundial. As long as CGI.br is involved in any activity, process or > institution related to the global governance of the Internet, there will > be a group of 21 board members representatives of the broader Internet > community in Brazil, assisted by a deeply committed Secretariat, working > for the promotion of the achievements of the NETmundial meeting earlier > this year.Instead of watching from a distant perspective the different > processes and environments that comprise the complex distributed IG > ecosystem, CGI.br members have been actively engaged with a myriad of > other stakeholders and the community as a whole in the different spaces > within which Internet governance is dealt with. CGI.br is committed to > raise a voice whenever there can by any unjustified reversion on the > thresholds set by NETmundial for Internet governance, namely: > collaboration, openness, transparency, and multistakeholderism by default. > > b) Brazil is to host the 2015 IGF. CGI.br is closely working with the > Brazilian government in order to assure that the 10th edition of the IGF > yields all the results that were normatively set by the community in > 2014 in different occasions: the renewal of its mandate in the UNGA > later this year; the strengthening of its role as the focal point for > the community; the assurance of funding sources, and the harmonization > of activities of the IGF with the different initiatives that are > sprouting (nationally, regionally, and globally) since the Community > issued the NETmundial Statement. > > 2) From its inception, CGI.br has been willing to dialogue and of work > together with every single member of the Community who is willing to > promote, reflect upon, strengthen, and enhance multistakeholderism. The > NMI is one among those efforts and can contribute to those goals by > publicizing ideas and connecting people from all over the world using a > single Web platform. Anything additional to the development and the > maintenance of the platform shall be a result of the Initiative after it > is set up. Bearing that in mind, on behalf of all of the members of the > Board of CGI.br, we would like to invite all stakeholders to join the > effort of building NMI based on the spirit and the aspirations of the > community in a collaborative manner. > > 3) The NETmundial Initiative is in its formation. The whole > institutionalization of NMI shall be community-driven. That is why the > Transitional Council, as soon as it got a request from the Civil Society > Coordination Group (CSCG), accepted to work together with the CSCG to > come up with a solution for defining Civil Society names for the NMI > Council by consensus and fully respecting the indications of Civil > Society. It is important to say that CGI.br is pretty confident that if > any other group of stakeholders approach the Transition Council with > similar solutions to strengthen the process, the Council will be > willingly open to recognize and implement them as a way of putting the > community at the center of the process of shaping the ulterior > composition of the NMI Council. > > Finally, let us reaffirm that CGI.br would never agree with top-down, > closed decision-making processes that could possibly undermine its > legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. It is up for the > community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and useful > for the advancement of IG in full respects of the principles enshrined > in the NETmundial declaration. > > Best regards, > > Virgílio Almeida > Coordinator of the Board of the CGI.br - Representative nominated by the > Federal Government > > Demi Getschko > Member of the Board of CGI.br, nominated as Internet Expert > > Carlos A. Afonso > Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the Third Sector > > Flávio Wagner > Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the scientific and > technological community and Selected member for the MAG/IGF 2015 > > Eduardo Parajo > Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the business sector - > Internet access and content providers > > Hartmut Glaser > Executive Secretary of the Board of the CGI.br > > > > From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 22 18:46:43 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 21:46:43 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> Dear people, In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be the other way around. I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. fraternal regards --c.a. (*) See, for example, this report: http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now come >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN (basically >> doing US's bidding) game. > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic and >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >> global level! >> > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great loss, >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >> initiative.* >> > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from such support. > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and have never represented it all. > > --srs > From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Nov 22 20:06:27 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 23:06:27 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] declaration of cgi.br members regarding NETmundial Initiative Message-ID: <54713313.8060505@cafonso.ca> [with apologies for possible duplications] To all of you directly and indirectly involved with the lively debate that has been observed within the Internet governance circles surrounding the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), we would like to clarify the following: 1)There are two main reasons for CGI.br to embark on the NETmundial Initiative. a) CGI.br is moved by a strong, crystal-clear and well known commitment to the preservation, the promotion and the implementation of the principles and the roadmap that were adopted in São Paulo during the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance - NETmundial. As long as CGI.br is involved in any activity, process or institution related to the global governance of the Internet, there will be a group of 21 board members representatives of the broader Internet community in Brazil, assisted by a deeply committed Secretariat, working for the promotion of the achievements of the NETmundial meeting earlier this year.Instead of watching from a distant perspective the different processes and environments that comprise the complex distributed IG ecosystem, CGI.br members have been actively engaged with a myriad of other stakeholders and the community as a whole in the different spaces within which Internet governance is dealt with. CGI.br is committed to raise a voice whenever there can by any unjustified reversion on the thresholds set by NETmundial for Internet governance, namely: collaboration, openness, transparency, and multistakeholderism by default. b) Brazil is to host the 2015 IGF. CGI.br is closely working with the Brazilian government in order to assure that the 10th edition of the IGF yields all the results that were normatively set by the community in 2014 in different occasions: the renewal of its mandate in the UNGA later this year; the strengthening of its role as the focal point for the community; the assurance of funding sources, and the harmonization of activities of the IGF with the different initiatives that are sprouting (nationally, regionally, and globally) since the Community issued the NETmundial Statement. 2) From its inception, CGI.br has been willing to dialogue and of work together with every single member of the Community who is willing to promote, reflect upon, strengthen, and enhance multistakeholderism. The NMI is one among those efforts and can contribute to those goals by publicizing ideas and connecting people from all over the world using a single Web platform. Anything additional to the development and the maintenance of the platform shall be a result of the Initiative after it is set up. Bearing that in mind, on behalf of all of the members of the Board of CGI.br, we would like to invite all stakeholders to join the effort of building NMI based on the spirit and the aspirations of the community in a collaborative manner. 3) The NETmundial Initiative is in its formation. The whole institutionalization of NMI shall be community-driven. That is why the Transitional Council, as soon as it got a request from the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), accepted to work together with the CSCG to come up with a solution for defining Civil Society names for the NMI Council by consensus and fully respecting the indications of Civil Society. It is important to say that CGI.br is pretty confident that if any other group of stakeholders approach the Transition Council with similar solutions to strengthen the process, the Council will be willingly open to recognize and implement them as a way of putting the community at the center of the process of shaping the ulterior composition of the NMI Council. Finally, let us reaffirm that CGI.br would never agree with top-down, closed decision-making processes that could possibly undermine its legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. It is up for the community to transform NMI into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG in full respect of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration. Best regards, Virgílio Almeida Coordinator of the Board of the CGI.br - Representative nominated by the Federal Government Demi Getschko Member of the Board of CGI.br, nominated as Internet Expert Carlos A. Afonso Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the Third Sector Flávio Wagner Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the scientific and technological community and Selected member for the MAG/IGF 2015 Eduardo Parajo Member of the Board of CGI.br, representative of the business sector - Internet access and content providers Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary of the Board of the CGI.br From dave at difference.com.au Sun Nov 2 01:28:14 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 14:28:14 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] Principles (warning - long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52BA1DEB-36F3-4D2D-B64F-E5A9743E5D6F@difference.com.au> On 1 Nov 2014, at 7:35 pm, Richard Hill wrote: >> 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. My comments really about whether transparency is a high priority relate to JNC relatively consistent backing of the ITU as a superior forum to highly transparent MS fora even while the ITU remains closed. But I guess i am willing to concede that this could be regarded as a difference of strategy rather than principle (in which case I just think it is a terrible strategy to implicitly reward the behaviour you are critical of). And I note your mention of transparency as a principle in the best practice document you link to. I think my position of 'clearly the JNC supports transparency, but that position is weakened by its previous support for non-transparent fora over transparent ones' is supportable, but I'll concede does not constitute a major point of divergence. Of course, the really important point here is noting that I feel transparency is a both a positive principle for MS advocates within civil society, and should be considered a very high priority principle for CS generally. And of course transparency is a generally observed actual property of IG MS fora. while multi-lateral or plurilateral fora often need to be dragged to it kicking and screaming towards it. We should be thankful to anyone who has put in their share of dragging. >> 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. Very glad to hear it. It certainly was not the impression I got from much JNC rhetoric, which tends strongly towards the exclusion of commercial operators from direct participation in policy processes. > But that does not imply that they should be able to veto decisions. That is probably largely about very differing ideas about how consensus decision making works. This idea that MS fora use a form of consensus that allows a single group to veto developments simply is generally not sustained by looking at actual processes. > If you cannot make decisions that industry does not like, they you won't > have seat belts in cars, prohibitions on cigarette advertising, etc. True, and there do need to be other mechanisms to deal with a failure to reach consensus. But consensus decision making does not imply giving all stakeholders a veto, though obviously proposals that have strong opposition may be a lot harder to get through a consensus process. >> 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. I certainly do not define consensus as unanimity. We should not reward simple intransigence. Which groups do define consensus as unanimity? ICANN doesn't (GNSO for example distinguishes between Full or Unanimous Consensus, and Consensus (which permits a small minority disagreement)). IETF certainly doesn't demand unanimity. For that matter, while I'm not personally experienced in ITU processes, but my understanding is the ITU generally uses the ISO/IEC Guide 2 consensus definition, which specifically says "Consensus need not imply unanimity". So where did this idea that MS processes work on the basis of consensus=unanimity come from? Anyway, sounds a pretty straw man argument to me, when looked at in any detail. > Or even to giving > private companies veto power over things like safety standards. While I note that you specifically rule out the IETF form of consensus as suitable for public policy (and it is, of course, designed for standards processes, so it would be surprising if it translated directly) the IETF definition does reward close examination. I particularly think any broader discussion of consensus in IG should include RFC 7282, in which Pete Resnick sets out a thorough explanation of IETF consensus in practice https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 It is notable that IETF rough consensus can mean overruling a group, even a large group, even a numerical majority of participants, that are simply stonewalling without presenting new arguments towards their position. The form of consensus used in multi-lateral fora seems much less flexible in this regard from my outsider perspective, and very conducive to allowing a single state to stonewall indefinitely. >> 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 Thank you for the link, it was well worth reading, and while I have strong disagreement with some aspects (I certainly would regard many multi-stakeholder outcomes as having a far higher level of legitimacy than industry self-regulation), it certainly does point out some points that I think would be widely supported within civil society. > But I agree with you that working out the details is a non-trivial exercise, > and will require some thinking. Indeed. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to compare your detailed discussion of requirements for open multi-stakeholder processes with, say, ICANN or RIR or IETF working group processes. In practice there really do not seem to obviously be too many differences (though your structure seems somewhat inflexible to me). And I thank you for making clear the distinction between open and closed multi-stakeholder processes, which Michael Gurstein often does not. > And no, I don't think that the IETF's > version of "rough consensus" is suitable for public policy matters. While the IETF version is not as suitable for bodies in which stakeholders are formally defined, I'd be interested to hear your objections to the IETF model - as you concentrate on issues such as requirements for unanimity leading to veto power, or numeric stacking, objections with do not appear to apply to the IETF version of rough consensus. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: From pouzin at well.com Sat Nov 22 20:23:01 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 02:23:01 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Remember WSIS. Brazil was the driving force in putting up the group of like minded countries. When final negotiation arrived, Brazil leadership evaporated. One could presume that they did not have the capacity to resist strong US arm twisting. NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken over. This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see what happens to Brazil. . Louis - - - On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, wrote: > > Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the > ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; > [snip] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Nov 23 04:17:56 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:17:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> Carlos, Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service in Davos. That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. JC Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > Dear people, > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be the other way around. > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > (*) See, for example, this report: > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now come >>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN (basically >>> doing US's bidding) game. >> >> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >> >> >>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic and >>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>> global level! >>> >> >> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >> >> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >> >>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great loss, >>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >> >> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >> >>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>> initiative.* >>> >> >> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from such support. >> >>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >> >> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and have never represented it all. >> >> --srs >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 23 05:15:51 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:15:51 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5471B3D7.3040108@cafonso.ca> Grande Louis, yes, nobody is perfect :) At the end of WSIS Brazilian positions were tainted by the government's effort to elect the Brazilian candidate to the ITU secretary general post. This resulted in the Brazilian involvement with the unfortunate "like-minded countries" idea. But please remember that we are talking about CGI.br, not the Brazilian government. Regarding the complaint mentioning difficulties in contacting NETmundial's BR chair, this is the first time I read such a thing. As a former member of NETmundial's executive committee, I would appreciate more specific information on this. Finally, at least JNC does not think that "WEF/ICANN" is a "nebulous gobbledygook", as they claim to know perfectly well that this a devilish concoction for the "corporate takeover of the Internet". fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/22/14 23:23, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi all, > > Remember WSIS. Brazil was the driving force in putting up the group of > like minded countries. When final negotiation arrived, Brazil leadership > evaporated. One could presume that they did not have the capacity to > resist strong US arm twisting. > > NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members > never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken > over. > > This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to > capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see > what happens to Brazil. > . > Louis > - - - > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, > wrote: > > > Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the > ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; > [snip] > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Sun Nov 23 05:36:22 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:36:22 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5471B8A6.2070304@cafonso.ca> I recalled Lula's visit to WEF for the obvious reason that the arguments used by some CS sectors against his travel to Davos at the time were exactly the same as JNC's today. To complete the horror, in 2010 WEF honored Lula with the Global Statesman award. I agree with your last phrase -- some of CS are so sanguine about the simple quotation of the "WEF" word that they are disregarding the more strategic questions. Is this initiative going to be a waste of time? Maybe. We (CG) are and will be trying hard for it to succeed as a pluralist space. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Carlos, > > Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement > with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula > accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and > Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and > a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that > everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear > setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an > invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service > in Davos. > > That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking > our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this > initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking > itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. > > JC > > > > > Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > >> Dear people, >> >> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >> >> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would >> be the other way around. >> >> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> (*) See, for example, this report: >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >> >> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>>> come >>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>>> (basically >>>> doing US's bidding) game. >>> >>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>> >>> >>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >>>> economic and >>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>>> global level! >>>> >>> >>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>> >>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds >>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>> >>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>>> loss, >>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >>> >>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>> >>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>> initiative.* >>>> >>> >>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>> such support. >>> >>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >>> >>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>> have never represented it all. >>> >>> --srs >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 23 05:51:40 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:51:40 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> BTW, I recall your article in that US-based blog, Huffington Post, denouncing NETmundial (not the initiative, but the meeting), just before the start of the event, as a complot by USA and the corporate folks to complete their "domination over the Internet": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/for-more-internet-and-mor_b_5175698.html I quote: "Still the Netmundial true co-organizers, ICANN and CGI.br still have had to make choices, even though the cost for traveling to Brazil already provided a natural selection in terms of attendance. To date, corporate delegates are to occupy more than 40 percent of the room. So here we are, after six months of intense behind-closed-doors preparation, ready to attend Netmundial, a conference that claims to be "multistakeholder," but which is really about launching the next stage of US global multistakeholder domination over the Internet, thanks to an ICANN++." Do you still think this is a true rendering of the NETmundia event? frt rgds --c.a. On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Carlos, > > Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement > with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula > accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and > Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and > a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that > everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear > setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an > invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service > in Davos. > > That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking > our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this > initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking > itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. > > JC > > > > > Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > >> Dear people, >> >> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >> >> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would >> be the other way around. >> >> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> (*) See, for example, this report: >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >> >> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>>> come >>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>>> (basically >>>> doing US's bidding) game. >>> >>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>> >>> >>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >>>> economic and >>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>>> global level! >>>> >>> >>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>> >>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds >>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>> >>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>>> loss, >>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >>> >>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>> >>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>> initiative.* >>>> >>> >>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>> such support. >>> >>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >>> >>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>> have never represented it all. >>> >>> --srs >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > From avri at acm.org Sun Nov 23 06:20:52 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:20:52 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] [] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5471C314.6030407@acm.org> On 23-Nov-14 13:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Californian non profit making profit and a Swiss non profit making even more profit. While both may have lots of excess income, neither takes profits. It is important to keep these two straight; the difference between a commercial and a non-commercial entity. In ICANN, many of us are trying to get the excess income spending on things like remediation rounds that support developing economies and communities . I don't know much about the WEF and its excess income, but if I did, I bet I would try to get them to spend it on projects to support various forms of IG capacity building and enabling tech the world over. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 06:33:48 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 03:33:48 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Blogpost: Ten Reasons Why Social Justice Matters for Internet Governance Message-ID: <0ae201d00711$59fb8a40$0df29ec0$@gmail.com> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/ten-reasons-why-social-justice-matt ers-for-internet-governance/ http://t.co/M2T1VQmw8p M From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Nov 23 06:50:33 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:50:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471C314.6030407@acm.org> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471C314.6030407@acm.org> Message-ID: <206626F4-B1F5-4E61-B99C-7CEDC23FB819@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks Avri, No confusion on my end, I guarantee you. Let's not be too naive and not forget that any non profit has many options to "use" excess income. - allocate excess revenue to reserve - grant high salaries and bonus (any excess on that when looking on WEF or ICANN?) - support friends and allies through stipends, grants, fellowship, awards, board fees, grandiose events, meetings with full amenities... - invest in for profit directly or indirectly - invest in other friendly non profit. etc, etc... That leaves a lot of room for doing whatever a non profit wants to do with excess income. In someway, it is much more exciting that simply having to give it to shareholders, after tax payment (many still don't like the idea of tax, right?). Transparency and accountability of WEF is not very relevant to citizen of the world, when we might consider it a bit differently when thinking of an entity such as the ICANN that makes its income, including its excess ones, from any one getting a domain name on this planet. Then, Think of PIR providing funds to ISOC, or ISOC covering cost for IETF. These financial links are of importance. Think of ICANN not funding the IGF when it would be fully compliant with its general mission and statement, and when it should. Let's hope someone at the WEF will read this exchange, and take your honorable idea of supporting (for no expected return) forms of IG building and enabling "tech" (?) the world over. (what did you mean here?) So far, ICANN has not really given a good example of how to best support independent CS forum (with the diversity of its views) to try to better build simple transnational Internet Public Policies (even though ITU is de facto doing part of the job for years now at a very slow pace) JC Le 23 nov. 2014 à 12:20, Avri Doria a écrit : > > On 23-Nov-14 13:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> Californian non profit making profit and a Swiss non profit making even more profit. > While both may have lots of excess income, neither takes profits. It is important to keep these two straight; the difference between a commercial and a non-commercial entity. > > In ICANN, many of us are trying to get the excess income spending on things like remediation rounds that support developing economies and communities . > > I don't know much about the WEF and its excess income, but if I did, I bet I would try to get them to spend it on projects to support various forms of IG capacity building and enabling tech the world over. > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 06:59:11 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 03:59:11 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471B8A6.2070304@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471B8A6.2070304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0aed01d00714$e56890c0$b039b240$@gmail.com> A "pluralist space" for what exactly? The lack of any clear answer to that question is what makes a lot of people including myself very uneasy. Clearly the NMI folks are very concerned to get buy in/legitimation from civil society to the point of making apparent concessions in order to obtain this. Precisely what is civil society gaining in return for according this legitimacy? And contrary to what many have suggested this is very much a zero sum game. Once accorded, it will be extremely hard if not impossible to withdraw the legitimacy which has been granted. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 2:36 AM To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Parminder Singh; Hartmut Richard Glaser; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br I recalled Lula's visit to WEF for the obvious reason that the arguments used by some CS sectors against his travel to Davos at the time were exactly the same as JNC's today. To complete the horror, in 2010 WEF honored Lula with the Global Statesman award. I agree with your last phrase -- some of CS are so sanguine about the simple quotation of the "WEF" word that they are disregarding the more strategic questions. Is this initiative going to be a waste of time? Maybe. We (CG) are and will be trying hard for it to succeed as a pluralist space. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Carlos, > > Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement > with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula > accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and > Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit > and a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet > that everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an > unclear setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of > misfortune, and an invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to > a nice room service in Davos. > > That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking > our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this > initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking > itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. > > JC > > > > > Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > >> Dear people, >> >> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >> >> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, >> and there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF >> took the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it >> would be the other way around. >> >> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> (*) See, for example, this report: >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate >> -globalisation >> >> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has >>>> now come out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and >>>> ICANN (basically doing US's bidding) game. >>> >>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>> >>> >>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the >>>> world the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the >>>> basic lessons with regard to the designs of global domination by a >>>> certain economic and political elite, and their impatience with >>>> democracy, especially at the global level! >>>> >>> >>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>> >>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that >>> excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic >>> backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but >>> merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain >>> far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>> >>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the >>>> Brazilian government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be >>>> such a great loss, and very much hope were not the case. *The >>>> global progressive community has consistently supported you, but >>>> this support cannot be taken for >>> >>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>> >>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>> initiative.* >>>> >>> >>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>> such support. >>> >>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work >>>> together with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil >>>> society offer ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands >>>> today the interests and fate of the people of the world, and of >>>> the future generations. Let >>> >>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>> have never represented it all. >>> >>> --srs >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Nov 23 07:08:00 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:08:00 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5471CE20.2000500@wzb.eu> Am 23.11.14 02:23, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): > Hi all, > NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members > never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken > over. Someone asked me to comment on this since I also was a member of the High Level Committee. So, I comment. According to my memory (and email archive) what Louis says is not true. The Executive Committee sent a draft for the HLMC to comment on. Some HLMC members commented, others didn't but complained instead about the lack of process. There was a lack of process, true, but this does not mean that ICANN had taken over. On the contrary, there was plenty of opportunity for us to influence and shape both the process and the draft documents. Lack of process is not always a bad thing. In the case of NM it provided significant opportunities for CS to assume responsibility and contribute to the draft documents. Adam but also Marilia were among the people who contributed a lot to the drafts. The 'ICANN dominates the world' kind of narrative does not do justice to the efforts of CS people in this process. jeanette > > This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to > capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see > what happens to Brazil. > . > Louis > - - - > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, > wrote: > > > Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the > ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; > [snip] > From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 2 22:36:37 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:06:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] A view form the US, about the US and the Internet Message-ID: <5456F845.9090703@itforchange.net> "The fact that no country beside the US possesses a pervasive, global spying system proves that the argument that “all countries do it” is specious. From satellites in the late 1950s to the Internet infrastructure today, this unparalleled US global surveillance complex has been continuously modernised. But since the fall of socialism in the early 1990s, it also has been repurposed. Its function is still to combat challengers, and would-be challengers, to a global political economy that is built around US interests." A view from the US /*US wants to control, and own, the world online - We’ve got our eye on you*/ http://mondediplo.com/2014/11/02dsnowden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Nov 23 07:24:23 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:24:23 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <81BABADA-F3F5-4777-88DE-C4967DE72460@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks for the reminder Carlos. One quick snap before going at your question. "Complot" is not part of my thinking, nor narrative. I do not see the world through any complot. Do you? So let's keep our head cool on this type of characterization. We can all see interests in motion. To your question: The IG asymmetry dates long before the mass surveillance revelations. But since then, we have seen the Montevideo statement, the ONE_NET initiative, the speech by Dilma Rousseff at the UN SG in NY, the NET MUNDIAL project launching , then the announcement of the IANA transition (under US conditions), the Marco civil and a statement by participants of NetMundial, and now we see an ICANN/WEF attempt to use the NetMundial statement as some kind of keystone to a re-thinking of Internet governance oriented through concrete projects (some money to be given away? any one having an idea of how to get part of that "funding"?)... And what else do you want me to say. I do no see any complot, nor am I sanguine about the WEF trying to be a neutral platform of engagement between their corporate membership and the IG clerics and masters. During the GIP, the WEF, through Richard Sammans' voice advocated for a form of dialogue, but he also clearly stated "one" vision of doing it with a major bias, as no requirement for any additional regulation to do that fresh re-thinking of IG. You know JNC is a bit stubborn about "public internet policies" and who should be interested primarily in this, and why JNC feels so bad about equating decision making for undifferentiated stakeholders. Nothing hysteric, even I do regret that the dialogue within CS takes us sometime in excessive language from all sides. So far, Virgilio attitude, as CGIbr main representative - and I agree with you that he is not representative of the Brazilian government in NMI - seems to be : "we will work with the existing institutions, and we don't need additional ones." At least this is what he states in his video. It is a bit different from saying "no additional regulations for IG". But is it not regrettable that he closes the door to new entities? One could be a complete new IGF? or a new entity for ICANN to become a true transnational body not under a US jurisdiction. I am concerned with Fadi not staying much longer as chair of ICANN, as we can all see tensions within the US. I am saying that because I am not sure that so far all of the different efforts (1Net, NetMundial...) has provided a critical basis for rebalancing the asymmetry we leave in. So he might be seen as failing both camps in the US. Or maybe I missed something here. Let me know if you have some evidence of that rebalancing. Where I am so uncomfortable is to have the persisting view that CS because lacking unity, and lacking trust in itself is failing to defend public interest in Internet Public Policy related issues. Kind regards JC PS/ I'll tell more about all that in my upcoming HuffPost. Le 23 nov. 2014 à 11:51, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > BTW, I recall your article in that US-based blog, Huffington Post, denouncing NETmundial (not the initiative, but the meeting), just before the start of the event, as a complot by USA and the corporate folks to complete their "domination over the Internet": > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/for-more-internet-and-mor_b_5175698.html > > I quote: "Still the Netmundial true co-organizers, ICANN and CGI.br still have had to make choices, even though the cost for traveling to Brazil already provided a natural selection in terms of attendance. To date, corporate delegates are to occupy more than 40 percent of the room. So here we are, after six months of intense behind-closed-doors preparation, ready to attend Netmundial, a conference that claims to be "multistakeholder," but which is really about launching the next stage of US global multistakeholder domination over the Internet, thanks to an ICANN++." > > Do you still think this is a true rendering of the NETmundia event? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> Carlos, >> >> Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement >> with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula >> accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and >> Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and >> a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that >> everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear >> setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an >> invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service >> in Davos. >> >> That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking >> our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this >> initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking >> itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >>> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >>> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >>> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >>> >>> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >>> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >>> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >>> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >>> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >>> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >>> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >>> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would >>> be the other way around. >>> >>> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >>> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >>> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> (*) See, for example, this report: >>> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >>> >>> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>>>> come >>>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>>>> (basically >>>>> doing US's bidding) game. >>>> >>>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>>> >>>> >>>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >>>>> economic and >>>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>>>> global level! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>>> >>>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >>>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds >>>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >>>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >>>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>>> >>>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>>>> loss, >>>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >>>> >>>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>>> >>>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>>> initiative.* >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>>> such support. >>>> >>>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >>>> >>>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>>> have never represented it all. >>>> >>>> --srs >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Nov 23 07:32:10 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 21:32:10 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471CE20.2000500@wzb.eu> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <5471CE20.2000500@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <59641E53-42DC-4E67-8CFB-8D401C6FFFD1@glocom.ac.jp> On Nov 23, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Am 23.11.14 02:23, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): >> Hi all, > >> NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members >> never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken >> over. > > Someone asked me to comment on this since I also was a member of the High Level Committee. So, I comment. According to my memory (and email archive) what Louis says is not true. > As a member of the executive committee which sent a draft to the HLC and then received comment, my memory is the same as Jeanette’s. Louis, I don’t remember you contributing much at all, on any list or in Sao Paulo, so perhaps you’re memory’s playing tricks. But I don’t have access to the HLC list archive. > The Executive Committee sent a draft for the HLMC to comment on. Some HLMC members commented, others didn't but complained instead about the lack of process. There was a lack of process, true, but this does not mean that ICANN had taken over. On the contrary, there was plenty of opportunity for us to influence and shape both the process and the draft documents. > EMC expected the HLC would produce a consolidated response, instead there were 9 or more different versions returned, mostly from government, but I remember documents from ICANN and ISOC (though members from non-govt organizations were there are individuals) . I am pretty sure those documents were leaked, so should be available online in some form or other. > Lack of process is not always a bad thing. In the case of NM it provided significant opportunities for CS to assume responsibility and contribute to the draft documents. Adam but also Marilia were among the people who contributed a lot to the drafts. The 'ICANN dominates the world' kind of narrative does not do justice to the efforts of CS people in this process. > I don’t remember anyone/any organization, including ICANN, trying to unduly influence EMC drafting. Prior to Sao Paulo, except for some silliness during the online comment period over “permissionless innovation”, the process was quite fair. Adam > jeanette > > >> >> This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to >> capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see >> what happens to Brazil. >> . >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, > > wrote: >> >> >> Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the >> ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; >> [snip] >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From iza at anr.org Sun Nov 23 09:07:28 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:07:28 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <59641E53-42DC-4E67-8CFB-8D401C6FFFD1@glocom.ac.jp> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <5471CE20.2000500@wzb.eu> <59641E53-42DC-4E67-8CFB-8D401C6FFFD1@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: I feel very much similar to what Jeanette and Adam said already. Besides, it would be much more important to see ahead. To me, Net Mundial Initiative looks that much legitimate, but we need to see much beyond a shorter perspective. izumi 2014-11-23 21:32 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake : > > On Nov 23, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > Am 23.11.14 02:23, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): > >> Hi all, > > > >> NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members > >> never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken > >> over. > > > > Someone asked me to comment on this since I also was a member of the > High Level Committee. So, I comment. According to my memory (and email > archive) what Louis says is not true. > > > > As a member of the executive committee which sent a draft to the HLC and > then received comment, my memory is the same as Jeanette’s. Louis, I don’t > remember you contributing much at all, on any list or in Sao Paulo, so > perhaps you’re memory’s playing tricks. But I don’t have access to the HLC > list archive. > > > > The Executive Committee sent a draft for the HLMC to comment on. Some > HLMC members commented, others didn't but complained instead about the lack > of process. There was a lack of process, true, but this does not mean that > ICANN had taken over. On the contrary, there was plenty of opportunity for > us to influence and shape both the process and the draft documents. > > > > EMC expected the HLC would produce a consolidated response, instead there > were 9 or more different versions returned, mostly from government, but I > remember documents from ICANN and ISOC (though members from non-govt > organizations were there are individuals) . I am pretty sure those > documents were leaked, so should be available online in some form or other. > > > > Lack of process is not always a bad thing. In the case of NM it provided > significant opportunities for CS to assume responsibility and contribute to > the draft documents. Adam but also Marilia were among the people who > contributed a lot to the drafts. The 'ICANN dominates the world' kind of > narrative does not do justice to the efforts of CS people in this process. > > > > > I don’t remember anyone/any organization, including ICANN, trying to > unduly influence EMC drafting. Prior to Sao Paulo, except for some > silliness during the online comment period over “permissionless > innovation”, the process was quite fair. > > Adam > > > > > jeanette > > > > > >> > >> This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to > >> capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see > >> what happens to Brazil. > >> . > >> Louis > >> - - - > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to > the > >> ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; > >> [snip] > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > -- >> 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 23 09:49:31 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 06:49:31 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52509c07fdb04d2e75a4b87474d89e32.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Dear Carlos, Lets be fair in our comparison. Lula going to Davos is not at all comparable to Brazil joining WEF for a new global governance platform for the Internet. Do you really not see the difference here? (Although it is instructive that many people in Brazil opposed Lula even going to the WEF!) JNC has nothing against WEF as a clique of global big business advocating their view of how the world should be, or how it should be governed. JNC would even be happy to speak at Davos to share its own views on this matter, and/ or other matters. It would also be glad to hear other views and engage in a discussion, So you see, just going to Davos is not the issue. Lula's visit to Davos is an absolutely unviable justification for Brazil's support for NMI. Carlos, you know what NMI is, right. It is an effort to fill an increasingly undeniable 'gap' about the need to address and resolve many pressing global IG issues, especially the ones which fall on the 'public policy' or non-technical side. There is enough matter around testifying to this fact for me to have to quote specific texts for you. And they need to act NOW, because they are afraid of and must anticipate other possible processes like the WSIS plus 10 one, which could be around the corner. This is not at all like Lula going to Davis to give his vision of the world to those assembled at Davos. It is about a new governance paradigm, platform and system. And our fight is against that new global governance paradigm, and our appeal to Brazil gov and CGI is not to contribute to building this new global governance paradigm that is run by the global elite, with some cooptations here and there to garner some amount of legitimacy. This is as clear as daylight. I am stressing this point because CGI.Br which is joining in as a partner of what is essentially an ICANN-WEF game must give us a clearer view of what they think and know of this initiative. It will be such a pity if they join in ignorance, and even more, if others follow them in ignorance. The JNC statement on the NMI ( http://justnetcoalition.org/NMI-neoliberal-caravan ) quotes WEF texts on how they seek co-governance by corporations and governments on actual public policy issues, how the IG space is the ideal place to start with such an governance -by-elite model, and as digitalisation of all social systems take place, this model becomes the default for all areas and sectors. Can the Brazil government and CGI.Br really profess ignorance about these facts. If not, what is their response to these regressive global governance models which strike at the heart of democracy that the WEF professes, and of which the NMI is no doubt a lead element? We need to discuss these issues. It is not enough to make mother-and-applepie statements like CGI.Br will never join a top-down initiative. One cannot change the WEF view and scheme for the world just by using terms like bottom-up in places where they simply do not belong. In fact it is so embarrassing that this term is being used anywhere near the vicinity of WEF at all, which was famously described as fat cats meeting in snow. I think Brazil and CGI.Br are putting at stake their hard won global reputation and goodwill. I just consider it my duty to forewarn them, especially since as you know I and my organization have long worked closely with them on many issues. Best regards Parminder > Dear people, > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. As > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with massive > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco the > thousands of people cheering Lula. > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort of > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, NGOs > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among them) -- > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and there is > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the reigns > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be the other > way around. > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > (*) See, for example, this report: > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>> come >>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>> (basically >>> doing US's bidding) game. >> >> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >> >> >>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain economic >>> and >>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>> global level! >>> >> >> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >> >> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds that >> you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >> >>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>> loss, >>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >> >> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to push, >> and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >> >>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>> initiative.* >>> >> >> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists that >> caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from such >> support. >> >>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. >>> Let >> >> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. Do >> stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and have >> never represented it all. >> >> --srs >> > > From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 23 10:12:32 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:12:32 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471B3D7.3040108@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <5471B3D7.3040108@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: snip > > Finally, at least JNC does not think that "WEF/ICANN" is a "nebulous > gobbledygook", as they claim to know perfectly well that this a devilish > concoction for the "corporate takeover of the Internet". Yes, Carlos, JNC claims to know quite a bit about the WEF. In fact a lots of people know quite a bit. Just on their plans for global governance and how precisely the NMI fits into their plans, you may want to read State of Davos – The camel’s nose in the tents of global governance by David Sogge ( http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_davos_chapter.pdf ) See how clearly he predicts what NMI is upto, quite a bit before NMI took shape. And since you mentioned your emotions about Lula and the launch of World Social Forum, you would also for sure know that the World Social Forum was launched in clear opposition to the World Economic Forum and its world view. Knowing that much about WEF should suffice. There is something that is basic and structural to WEF, and a WEF led global IG paradigm can easily be criticised from that 'knowledge' alone. And you know that as more civil society people outside a certain charmed IG civil society circle hear about it, there can only be one response to it - surprise followed by dismay. parminder > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/22/14 23:23, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Remember WSIS. Brazil was the driving force in putting up the group of >> like minded countries. When final negotiation arrived, Brazil leadership >> evaporated. One could presume that they did not have the capacity to >> resist strong US arm twisting. >> >> NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members >> never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken >> over. >> >> This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading to >> capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. Let's see >> what happens to Brazil. >> . >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, > > wrote: >> >> >> Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to >> the >> ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; >> [snip] >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 mctimconsulting at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 10:14:38 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 09:14:38 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] [] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <206626F4-B1F5-4E61-B99C-7CEDC23FB819@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471C314.6030407@acm.org> <206626F4-B1F5-4E61-B99C-7CEDC23FB819@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: Think of ICANN not funding the IGF when it would be fully compliant with its general mission and statement, and when it should. ICANN DOES fund the IGF. rgds, McTim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Sun Nov 23 11:51:26 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 14:51:26 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471BC3C.9010602@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <41CA8B3D-4905-429D-A4A6-F3C44DC81C03@me.com> Dears let me bring my $0.02... I understand the Parminder's ponderations about the fact that Brazilian CGI.Br could be spending political capital. Also the Wolfgang's valuable placements about the concerns overshadowed by the NMI thread must not be forgotten. Also going back to the past we must remember that NetMundial meeting was purposed by Fadi to our president Dilma after her valuable speech at UN based on the CGI.Br principles. One of the first step of the Brazilian government after this meeting was seeking for the CGI.Br advice. Following this I think we must remember the Bali meeting with Bests Bits and the Brazilian government that shaped the way NM meeting would be. Also remember our shared concerns about this meetings, included the fact if they would or not be necessary. Also we are facing the same dilemma, concerns, and obviously evaluating the political wealth of our positioning. Also my point of view remains the same, NMI will move forward with or without us, and I continue imagining despite the NMI was connected to WEF, our progressive participation on the board in a maximum number of chairs allow us to strength our force against the any WEF position. Also resulting the growth or shrinkage potential of NMI. Hugs _ João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 23/11/2014, às 08:51, Carlos Afonso escreveu: > > BTW, I recall your article in that US-based blog, Huffington Post, denouncing NETmundial (not the initiative, but the meeting), just before the start of the event, as a complot by USA and the corporate folks to complete their "domination over the Internet": > > http://www.x.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/for-more-internet-and-mor_b_5175698.html > > I quote: "Still the Netmundial true co-organizers, ICANN and CGI.br still have had to make choices, even though the cost for traveling to Brazil already provided a natural selection in terms of attendance. To date, corporate delegates are to occupy more than 40 percent of the room. So here we are, after six months of intense behind-closed-doors preparation, ready to attend Netmundial, a conference that claims to be "multistakeholder," but which is really about launching the next stage of US global multistakeholder domination over the Internet, thanks to an ICANN++." > > Do you still think this is a true rendering of the NETmundia event? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > >> On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> Carlos, >> >> Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement >> with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula >> accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and >> Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and >> a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that >> everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear >> setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an >> invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service >> in Davos. >> >> That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking >> our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this >> initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking >> itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >>> Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : >>> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >>> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >>> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >>> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >>> >>> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >>> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >>> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >>> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >>> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >>> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >>> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >>> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would >>> be the other way around. >>> >>> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >>> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >>> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> (*) See, for example, this report: >>> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >>> >>> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now >>>>> come >>>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN >>>>> (basically >>>>> doing US's bidding) game. >>>> >>>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>>> >>>> >>>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world >>>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons >>>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >>>>> economic and >>>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the >>>>> global level! >>>> >>>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>>> >>>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes >>>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds >>>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure >>>> demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away >>>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>>> >>>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian >>>>> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a great >>>>> loss, >>>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community >>>>> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be taken for >>>> >>>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>>> >>>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>>> initiative.* >>>> >>>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>>> such support. >>>> >>>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together >>>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer >>>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests >>>>> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future generations. Let >>>> >>>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>>> have never represented it all. >>>> >>>> --srs >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Sun Nov 23 15:22:57 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:22:57 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <54712063.9050703@cafonso.ca> <0424D5D8-3287-4899-ACE1-E631D0F7D48D@theglobaljournal.net> <5471B8A6.2070304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0c6e01d0075b$456771d0$d0365570$@gmail.com> BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to reply to this rather minimal set of questions/comments... They were originally addressed to Carlos Afonso but anyone supporting the NMI might want to provide a response. M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 3:59 AM To: 'Carlos Afonso'; 'Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Cc: 'Parminder Singh'; 'Hartmut Richard Glaser'; 'Best Bits' Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br A "pluralist space" for what exactly? The lack of any clear answer to that question is what makes a lot of people including myself very uneasy. Clearly the NMI folks are very concerned to get buy in/legitimation from civil society to the point of making apparent concessions in order to obtain this. Precisely what is civil society gaining in return for according this legitimacy? And contrary to what many have suggested this is very much a zero sum game. Once accorded, it will be extremely hard if not impossible to withdraw the legitimacy which has been granted. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 2:36 AM To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Parminder Singh; Hartmut Richard Glaser; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br I recalled Lula's visit to WEF for the obvious reason that the arguments used by some CS sectors against his travel to Davos at the time were exactly the same as JNC's today. To complete the horror, in 2010 WEF honored Lula with the Global Statesman award. I agree with your last phrase -- some of CS are so sanguine about the simple quotation of the "WEF" word that they are disregarding the more strategic questions. Is this initiative going to be a waste of time? Maybe. We (CG) are and will be trying hard for it to succeed as a pluralist space. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Carlos, > > Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement > with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula > accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and > Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit > and a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet > that everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an > unclear setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of > misfortune, and an invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to > a nice room service in Davos. > > That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking > our eyes away from more serious concerns - an evidence that this > initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking > itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats. > > JC > > > > > Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > >> Dear people, >> >> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president. >> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in >> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula. >> >> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of >> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort >> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, >> and there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF >> took the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it >> would be the other way around. >> >> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> (*) See, for example, this report: >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate >> -globalisation >> >> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has >>>> now come out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and >>>> ICANN (basically doing US's bidding) game. >>> >>> Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >>> >>> >>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the >>>> world the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the >>>> basic lessons with regard to the designs of global domination by a >>>> certain economic and political elite, and their impatience with >>>> democracy, especially at the global level! >>>> >>> >>> Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >>> >>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that >>> excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic >>> backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but >>> merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain >>> far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject. >>> >>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the >>>> Brazilian government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be >>>> such a great loss, and very much hope were not the case. *The >>>> global progressive community has consistently supported you, but >>>> this support cannot be taken for >>> >>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive >>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to >>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share. >>> >>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out >>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance >>>> initiative.* >>>> >>> >>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists >>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from >>> such support. >>> >>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work >>>> together with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil >>>> society offer ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands >>>> today the interests and fate of the people of the world, and of >>>> the future generations. Let >>> >>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness. >>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. You don't and >>> have never represented it all. >>> >>> --srs >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Nov 24 02:59:35 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:59:35 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: References: <20141120180615.70715c31qjih9b5j@mail.nic.br> <546E5B7B.8040205@nic.br> <73BA0FE2-23E3-4A93-B16E-DD8B12AF1961@cafonso.ca> <546F27F8.200@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F4562.1040204@nic.br> <546F4A25.8040008@nic.br> <546F4B00.8060706@inf.ufrgs.br> <546F5017.7010706@nic.br> <54709506.10508@cgi.br> <5470A05E.9000007@cafonso.ca> <5470A4F6.9000407@nic.br> <13f47e7145ba42c3a45180f5b8fef20f@GRUPR80MB313.lamprd80.prod.outlook.com> <5470D76C.2040604@cgi.br> <0d1fcdaf91f376f7742d20a87279ba00.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 02:23 23/11/2014, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >Hi all, >Remember WSIS. Brazil was the driving force in putting up the group >of like minded countries. When final negotiation arrived, Brazil >leadership evaporated. One could presume that they did not have the >capacity to resist strong US arm twisting. Louis, I fully agree with this. The "US business predator strategy" is certainly the right word. I feel we see an ISOC/USG disagreement with WEF/ICANN over the speed and the kind of control, ISOC/USG (Lynn St-Amour/Don Tapscott - http://gsnetworks.org/) seem to wish to weave an US structured accountability network, while WEF/ICANN seem to want to retain a status-quo. >NetMundial was a similar scenario. The high level committee members >never got any contact from the brazilian chair. ICANN had already taken over. > >This WEF/ICANN nebulous gobbledygook smacks of another railroading >to capture some opponents to the US business predator strategy. >Let's see what happens to Brazil. Let not put all our eggs in the same basket. As long as we cannot have a CS basket to be present in the Gov type basket (US/ISOC/FCC) and the Business type basket (WEF/ICANN/Rosetta) is a good thing. May I also remind the https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/APPROVED-MARCO-CIVIL-MAY-2014.pdf link to the bilingual version of the Marco Civil law? Now, I feel - from studying some Brazilean initiatives such as the Rio's ITS - that Brazilean technologists are more often lawyers than free open software developpers. So they are better at getting political positions/agreements than at technologically settling it what is surprising due to the level reached by the Brazilean software. This another reason for me to plea for a Libre/CS cooperation. jfc > . >Louis >- - - > >On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM, ><parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >Dear members of CGI.Br and signatories of the appeal for support to the >ICANN-WEF global IG Initiative; >[snip] > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >____________________________________________________________ >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 From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Nov 24 04:21:41 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:21:41 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <546C454E.8030107@ITforChange.net> <3D1E1CA9-1F08-4EC0-891C-4C39E3953A0D@difference.com.au> , Message-ID: <5472F8A5.5030406@wzb.eu> I completely agree with Lee's conclusions. Let's put aside our underdog attitude for a moment and think about projects that we could advance with the help of this new platform. Here at #Afrisig2014, we have discussed some ideas about evolving the summer school model, developing a more general curriculum, put together textbooks and stuff like that. (For clarification, I am not applying for a seat on any NMI council, and my personal career does not benefit from supporting new IG platforms either.) jeanette Am 24.11.14 05:36, schrieb Lee W McKnight: > I am MORE in favor IGC engaging with NMI because: > > 1. > the rationale and explanations from Carlos Afonso and cgi.br > colleagues are clear and sensible; those who helped pull off > NetMundial have earned IGC’s support > 2. > The views of the I-orgs, who were against IGF before they were for > it (cough cough), are also clear but less convincing, seeing as > those orgs do not claim to be the appropriate venues themselves to > address the range of issues likely to be (in my opinion) brought to > NMI, and offer no alternative. Should NMI prove to be of some merit, > no doubt the I orgs will engage at a later date. > 3. > Likewise, the more JNC has explained its views, the less weight they > hold, seeing as they appear focused on a specifically anti-US big > (internet) business animus , completely neglecting to note the new > giants on the block such as Alibaba's record-setting IPO which has > resulted in a firm that has a market cap far exceeding the Amazon > boogeyman, as well as Walmart's. (not that there is anything wrong > with Alibaba, but obsessively picking on the little guy/small(er) > business - Amazon ; ) - seems to be misplaced and unhelpful to > multistakeholder dialog and governance. (OK to be fair JNC is in > good company picking on Amazon, since like JNC, Wall Street is also > giving Amazon a hard time of late, as are European publishers > Hachette and Springer who are also managing to push back against > Amazon themselves. Anyway, this anti-Amazon obsession of some is but > a sideshow/distraction to consideration of broader Internet > governance issues and should therefore carry limited weight in > IGC's own considerations, although of course everyone is free to > voice whatever views they wish, whether of Amazon or something more > relevant to the issues at hand. > 4. > Last but not least, the historical triumph of - cgi.br and ICANN > coopting WEF - to facilitate industry engagement in broader IG > policy issues discussions and implementations should be recognized > for what it is, and not mistaken for a sign of the failure but > rather is a mark of success/the mainstreaming of Internet > governance, as matters of truly global Import and requiring truly > global solutions. > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎November‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎10‎:‎42‎ ‎PM > *To:* > > It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT. > > I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI. > > Nnenna > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: > > Dear David Cake, > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake > wrote: > > Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the > process, and having them run the process by their own rules. > > I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory, > multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to > eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial > sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes > often represent small sectors of the commercial world with very > strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos and > copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader > commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in > IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And > note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is not the > same as having sympathy for their policy positions and actions, > simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open, > transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to battle > covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in > which CS has no voice. > > But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open > multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not > open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial > led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome > to keep doing those things, but such processes should not be > considered legitimate means of producing multi-stakeholder > transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly started > with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, > such as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted. > > > > 1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does > not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that > has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may > not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of > managing their business forum), but as a participant of the > NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its > own style. > > 2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each > stakeholder group would balance the other groups. ​If the initial > NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so > well thought of - in its early stages. > > As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI > into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG > in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial > declaration. > ​"​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in > some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far. > > > > David > > > > On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M > > wrote: > > Dear Guru, > > ​(You (Guru) said: ​ > WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen > the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS > Declaration of Principles from the activities of > transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising > our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their > unregulated work also is structuring our participation > in the information society in many unhealthy ways. > Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are > in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary > programme of global surveillance > > > ​If such as strong generalization of big business is to be > accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to > such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS > declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder > group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be > a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil > Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to > Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude > Government from Internet Governance, and declare that > Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single > stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only > stakeholder group. > > Seriously, i > f WSIS had committed to build a " > people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented > Information Society > ​", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such > a position on Big Business? ​ > > > And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this > world has happened because of enterprise, much more because > of business than because of Government. Granted, some of > the information technology big businesses have worked with > Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do > not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a > desire for profit and how much of it was forced by > arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and > imaginative ways. > > Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the > moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF > . > ​ > WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to > a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's > attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing > influence within the corporate world, because many of these > Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves. > ​Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in > unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the > moment, and w > e could > ​eventually ​ > work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.​ > ​ > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru > wrote: > > Dear Mawaki > > I would like to cite from two sources: > > A. WSIS Declaration of Principles - > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html > (the very first two clauses) > > 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, > *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the > first phase of the World Summit on the Information > Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to > build a people-centred, inclusive and > development-oriented Information Society, where everyone > can create, access, utilize and share information and > knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples > to achieve their full potential in promoting their > sustainable development and improving their quality of > life, premised on the purposes and principles of the > Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and > upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of > information and communication technology to promote the > development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely > the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; > achievement of universal primary education; promotion of > gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of > child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to > combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring > environmental sustainability; and development of global > partnerships for development for the attainment of a > more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also > reiterate our commitment to the achievement of > sustainable development and agreed development goals, as > contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of > Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other > outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits. > > I now will cite from the WEF site - > http://www.weforum.org/our-members > > Begin > Our Members > The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. > Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top > corporations, global enterprises usually with more than > US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among > the top companies within their industry and play a > leading role in shaping the future of their industry and > region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s > Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which > are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s > events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are > at the heart of all our activities. > End > > It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big > businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the > ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the > activities of transnational corporations. Apart from > using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in > authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their > unregulated work also is structuring our participation > in the information society in many unhealthy ways. > Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are > in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary > programme of global surveillance, which helps them in > their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation > > Participating in forums anchored in such a space will > only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should > not participate in the NMI. > > thanks and regards > Guru > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations > ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net | > Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 > 26654134 , 26536890 > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > > > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat > > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before > > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with > > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI > > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are > > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI > > Coordination Council. > > > > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG > > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or > > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been > > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the > > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be > > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about > > our participation in the NMI process. > > > > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief. > > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if > > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you > > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we > > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I > > mean.) > > > > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: > 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 > > From lea at gp-digital.org Mon Nov 3 00:38:18 2014 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 05:38:18 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU Plenipot] Recap Oct 29 - Nov 3 Message-ID: Dear all, This is to give an update of the ongoing discussions at the ITU PP14. Civil society in Busan have participated in many debates outlined below, through their national delegations or informal discussions with other delegates. It would be great if colleagues following particular discussions could expand or reflect on the summary presented below. On a general note, with 4 days to go, most people seem to think that compromises have been reached sooner than expected. A number of us participated in the second meeting with the outgoing ITU Secretary General, which was largely seen as an ITU PR-stunt. In order to ensure continuity, an informal meeting of CS reps with the Secretary General elect, Mr. Zhao, is expected to take place in the next few days. If you have suggestions for what issues should be raised at that meeting, share them here. Hope this is useful. Best, Lea --- *Process* At the beginning of Week 3 of the Plenipot, most ad hoc working groups (AHGs) dealing with specific proposals are wrapping up. Many AHGs have already agreed text, which has been sent to Committee 5 (COM5), Committee 6 (COM6), and the Plenary Working Group (WGPL). Once agreed in an ad hoc, the text rarely gets re-opened for discussion in the Committees or WGPL, and even more rarely in the Plenary. Discussions What follows is an overview of main discussions divided by relevant AHGs. The list is not exhaustive. For a visual representation of various AHGs pertaining to the WGPL, see this useful chart created by Samantha Dickinson (who has also been diligently live-tweeting the meeting). COM5 AHG on draft new resolution on counterfeit devices Status: Ad hoc closed, text sent to COM5 which will consider it on Monday afternoon. Highlights: - All references to ‘unauthorised devices’ have been dropped so the resolution is now only about counterfeit devices. - References to a device database in which all telecommunications/ICT would need to be registered, are removed from the document; - Problematic language on combating counterfeit is now balanced by reference to taking into consideration ‘importance of maintaining user connectivity’ (which is very similar to the BB recommendation). This means that in combating counterfeit equipment, countries should not simply disconnect all counterfeit devices without considering how this affects user connectivity, which is great win for end-users. - We did not manage to get references to IMEI and other unique identifiers completely out of the text, but it doesn't seem that this will do much harm or increase mandate of ITU, since this is mostly regulated via national legislation and regulation and the provision on the consideration of end-user connectivity. ITU-T also already has a strong standard on this (namely X.1255 which can be found here: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1255-201309-I AHGs on ITU openness and transparency (Decisions 11 & 12, New Decision on Access to ITU documents) Status: Ad hoc on access to documents closed, text agreed by COM5; Ad hoc on Decision 11 (opening up CWGs) ongoing, next to meet on Monday afternoon. Highlights: COM5 AHG on access to documents (New decision): - Member States agreed on the broad principle that the ITU needs to be more transparent and that more of its documents should be open to the public. - They disagreed on how this should be done in practice (what the official policy would look like), who should take the decision, and the appropriate timeframe. - The agreed text decides to open all input and output documents of ITU conference and assemblies starting in 2015. It then instructs one of the Council Working Groups to draft a policy to present to the Council for consideration. The Council can then, on an interim basis, decide to implement the policy, as appropriate. The final decision on policy to be taken at PP 2018. WGPL AHG on Council Working Groups (CWGs) & CWG Internet (Decision 11): - [Currently, all CWGs are open to all ITU Member States; some are open to Sector Members; none are open to observers. CWG-Internet is only open to Member States. Best Bits submitted a request to open this CWG in 2013, which was denied by Council.] - Proposals from Europe and US ask for all CWGs to be open to all Member States and Sector members, and for CWG-Internet to be open to all stakeholders. There is no agreement on this and discussions are ongoing. WGPL AHG on Resolution 130 (Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) Status: Ad hoc closed, text to be presented for WGPL consideration on Monday afternoon. Highlights: - The agreed text does not diverge greatly from the original Resolution 130 – an outcome that is most aligned with proposals from those who advocated a ‘no-change’ approach to this Resolution (US, Europe); - Proposals to include references to privacy and human rights have been resisted; - Proposals for the ITU to come up with a roadmap for dealing with cybersecurity have equally been resisted, WGPL AGH on Internet-related resolutions (Res 101, Res 102, Res 133, Res 180, and new proposals) Status: Ad hoc closed. Texts to be considered by WGPL on Monday afternoon. Status of texts as of Nov 2 is available here (updated text from Nov 3 not yet online). Highlights: - Compromise text was reached on all Internet-related resolutions, with minor revisions, some slight improvements, and a limited concession on the side of the US/Europe to acknowledge more explicitly the role of the ITU in Internet-related issues (particularly in Res 102); - It was also agreed that the ITU should take a more conservative approach to opening up the CWG Internet. On that point, it was agreed that CWG Internet will hold open consultations on various agenda items prior to CWG meetings, but otherwise the doors of the CWG will stay closed to non-Member States; - The 4 newly proposed resolutions have been withdrawn, including the controversial Indian proposal (IND/98), which will nevertheless get a mention in the Chairman's report, WGPL AHG on Res 174 (ITU's role with regard to international public policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of ICTs) Status: Ad hoc closed, text agreed by WGPL Highlights: - Outcome document has been boiled down to awareness raising and sticking to the ITU’s existing mandate in combatting illicit use of ICTs; - All references to ‘global charter’ related to security of ICTs have been dropped, WGPL AHG on WSIS related resolutions (Res 140, Res 172) Status: Ad hoc on WSIS reached agreement on Res 140 text , which was subsequently considered and approved by WGPL. Res 172 has been supressed. Highlights: - The group decided to supress Resolution 172 (reasons: text seen as out-dated and otherwise covered in Res 140), which was subsequently approved by WGPL. - The agreed text of Res 140 resolves that ITU continues its facilitating role in the WSIS process, subject to UNGA 2015 WSIS Review, and continues being the lead facilitator in relevant WSIS Action Lines as specified in the Tunis Agenda (C2, C5, C6). The resolution encourages the UNGA overall review to take into account ITU’s review of the WSIS, including the outcome doc of WSIS+10 High Level Event. WGPL AHG on Res 64 (Non-discriminatory access) Status: Ad hoc closed, proposed text to be considered by WGPL on Monday afternoon Highlights: - It is also worth noting the discussion on Resolution 64 , which has spurred a stand off between Cuba and others in relation to non-discriminatory access to ICTs. For context, similar discussions have, arguably, led to the break-down of WCIT. It now seems that a compromise text has been found and should be presented to WGPL on Monday afternoon. ---- *Lea Kaspar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 05:35:21 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:35:21 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Moving Foreward into the 2015 Agenda In-Reply-To: References: <0329B12F-743A-478E-97D0-0B7394B9A4A3@eff.org> <4AF7F995-A071-4E19-B0F7-A5F6922D511F@theglobaljournal.net> <546D9597.1080702@apc.org> <238301d004aa$920d21f0$b62765d0$@gmail.com> <1772746e261a18240cf44a85af7af3b9.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <170887ED-E12C-4CC0-A096-8D953A6BD959@theglobaljournal.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8C509691-9049-4CF9-B3EA-D302DAD264EC@gmail.com> Hi > On Nov 22, 2014, at 8:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > 1. IGF MAG Meeting in early December in Geneva and preparations for the 10th IGF in Brazil (November 2015); > > [Sala T: I suggest we initiate pointers for our MAG members to raise asap and make a call for comments on the etherpad or mailing list and initiate a thread or continue input into Bill Drake and other's call for input. As a community, we should make a more consolidated stand and submit a proper statement or 3 page submissions on key topics. This can include and involve wider community input and be submitted by our MAG representatives. Priority should be given to this given the short time we have. Share the sentiment but it’s a bit late, the secretariat’s synthesis paper already has been published. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/contributions/open-consultations/2014-december/408-synthesis-paper-contributions-taking-stock-of-igf-2014-and-looking-forward-to-igf-2015/file Since the IGC no longer has anything to say about the IGF (why bother when ideological pissing matches are just so much more constructive), the only CS input documents it could draw on regarding the broad architecture were those from Jeremy, APC, and CDT. These made many good points, but in the synthesis the notion of implementing the NM statement's recommendations, consistent with what the IGC used to advocate, does not exactly stand out as a focal point for discussion. There is one paragraph that could be referred to and built on in interventions though, should the people participating in next week’s open consultation and MAG meeting wish to coordinate on messaging: "34. It was suggested that, while still maintaining the key characteristic of being an open platform for discussion, the IGF should continue to develop more tangible outcomes, as recommended by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on Improvements to the IGF. Some contributions emphasized that the tenth IGF could take a step forward in this direction if it were to practically use designated main sessions, workshops, other sessions or working groups to develop non-binding opinions, recommendations and/or policy principles that stakeholders could use to address currently pressing Internet-related issues. One input suggested that a separate “Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council” could be formed to assess whether a text proposal/policy recommendation(s) discussed within the framework of IGF preparatory work or in the annual meeting itself had reached consensus.” Best Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Nov 24 21:01:09 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:01:09 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> I would like to thank everyone for their very useful feedback about the NETmundial Initiative (NMI). It cannot have escaped anyone's attention that there are very divergent views on civil society's participation in the Initiative. Since there is a self-nomination process in place on the NMI website, some members of civil society who are interested will use it (and some already have). But in my view it would be wrong for them to do so if the criticisms that others have made were not passed along, and I think the nominees will have a responsibility to help ensure that these are addressed. It was good to read from our CGI.br friends that this is also a priority condition of their participation. As as concerns Best Bits and more particularly the Civil Society Coordination Group that we are part of, there is not strong enough support for us to run our own nomination process, and it would be redundant to do so. However, what the CSCG can do is to advise the organisers which candidates, from amongst those who self-nominated through its process, should be selected - rather than allowing the organisers to cherry-pick. In doing that, a very strong message about our concerns can also be passed back to them for action. The CSCG is deliberating upon this now, but based on the discussions on this list and the messages given both in favour and against participation, the most broadly acceptable option seems for us to support that compromise. But let's see whether the other members of the Civil Society Coordination Group (besides JNC) agree on that - if not, we will not participate even to the extent of recommending candidates who have self-nominated. Either way, we should know by tomorrow and I will write back to this list then with more news then. -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Mon Nov 24 22:19:52 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:19:52 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> References: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> Message-ID: <8E883C83-2C30-4971-877C-1E0BA9A1514E@me.com> Excellent positioning Jeremy, We must expect to consolidate this proposal. Also agree that applicants have this commitment to defend the demands of CSCG, won't be different. After that I will move forward my intention to self nominate to Civil Society at Latin America chair. Nice João Carlos R. Caribé (021)4042 7727 (021)98761 1967 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPhone > Em 25/11/2014, às 00:01, Jeremy Malcolm escreveu: > > I would like to thank everyone for their very useful feedback about the > NETmundial Initiative (NMI). It cannot have escaped anyone's attention > that there are very divergent views on civil society's participation in > the Initiative. > > Since there is a self-nomination process in place on the NMI website, > some members of civil society who are interested will use it (and some > already have). But in my view it would be wrong for them to do so if > the criticisms that others have made were not passed along, and I think > the nominees will have a responsibility to help ensure that these are > addressed. It was good to read from our CGI.br friends that this is > also a priority condition of their participation. > > As as concerns Best Bits and more particularly the Civil Society > Coordination Group that we are part of, there is not strong enough > support for us to run our own nomination process, and it would be > redundant to do so. However, what the CSCG can do is to advise the > organisers which candidates, from amongst those who self-nominated > through its process, should be selected - rather than allowing the > organisers to cherry-pick. In doing that, a very strong message about > our concerns can also be passed back to them for action. > > The CSCG is deliberating upon this now, but based on the discussions on > this list and the messages given both in favour and against > participation, the most broadly acceptable option seems for us to > support that compromise. But let's see whether the other members of the > Civil Society Coordination Group (besides JNC) agree on that - if not, > we will not participate even to the extent of recommending candidates > who have self-nominated. Either way, we should know by tomorrow and I > will write back to this list then with more news then. > > -- > 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 22:34:40 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 03:34:40 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> References: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> Message-ID: . However, what the CSCG can do is to advise the > organisers which candidates, from amongst those who self-nominated > through its process, should be selected - rather than allowing the > organisers to cherry-pick. In doing that, a very strong message about > our concerns can also be passed back to them for action. > I think that will be ridiculous. If CSCG decides not to engage in NMI nominations, it should stand by that, and leave nominations alone. It is because we dont want organisers to cherry-pick that we are asking CSCG to run the CS nomination process. And no, if someone self-nominates and gets selected, the individual does not owe global CS any accountability. I think accountability is a right of those being represented. So we cannot require accountability where we did not give a mandate > > The CSCG is deliberating upon this now, but based on the discussions on > this list and the messages given both in favour and against > participation, the most broadly acceptable option seems for us to > support that compromise. But let's see whether the other members of the > Civil Society Coordination Group (besides JNC) agree on that - if not, > we will not participate even to the extent of recommending candidates > who have self-nominated. Either way, we should know by tomorrow and I > will write back to this list then with more news then. > Thanks for all the good work. I know that from IGC list, the "ayes" have it. Nnenna > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Tue Nov 25 06:18:08 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:18:08 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> References: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> Message-ID: <54746570.6070008@cdt.org> I think this is a very sound approach. Thanks Jeremy. Matthew On 11/25/2014 2:01 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I would like to thank everyone for their very useful feedback about the > NETmundial Initiative (NMI). It cannot have escaped anyone's attention > that there are very divergent views on civil society's participation in > the Initiative. > > Since there is a self-nomination process in place on the NMI website, > some members of civil society who are interested will use it (and some > already have). But in my view it would be wrong for them to do so if > the criticisms that others have made were not passed along, and I think > the nominees will have a responsibility to help ensure that these are > addressed. It was good to read from our CGI.br friends that this is > also a priority condition of their participation. > > As as concerns Best Bits and more particularly the Civil Society > Coordination Group that we are part of, there is not strong enough > support for us to run our own nomination process, and it would be > redundant to do so. However, what the CSCG can do is to advise the > organisers which candidates, from amongst those who self-nominated > through its process, should be selected - rather than allowing the > organisers to cherry-pick. In doing that, a very strong message about > our concerns can also be passed back to them for action. > > The CSCG is deliberating upon this now, but based on the discussions on > this list and the messages given both in favour and against > participation, the most broadly acceptable option seems for us to > support that compromise. But let's see whether the other members of the > Civil Society Coordination Group (besides JNC) agree on that - if not, > we will not participate even to the extent of recommending candidates > who have self-nominated. Either way, we should know by tomorrow and I > will write back to this list then with more news then. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Nov 25 06:56:15 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:56:15 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> References: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> Message-ID: On 25 November 2014 at 05:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The CSCG is deliberating upon this now, but based on the discussions on > this list and the messages given both in favour and against > participation, the most broadly acceptable option seems for us to > support that compromise. But let's see whether the other members of the > Civil Society Coordination Group (besides JNC) agree on that - if not, > we will not participate even to the extent of recommending candidates > who have self-nominated. Either way, we should know by tomorrow and I > will write back to this list then with more news then From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 25 08:14:52 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:44:52 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC In-Reply-To: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> References: <5473E2E5.3080502@eff.org> Message-ID: <547480CC.4020404@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 25 November 2014 07:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I would like to thank everyone for their very useful feedback about the > NETmundial Initiative (NMI). It cannot have escaped anyone's attention > that there are very divergent views on civil society's participation in > the Initiative. > > Since there is a self-nomination process in place on the NMI website, > some members of civil society who are interested will use it (and some > already have). But in my view it would be wrong for them to do so if > the criticisms that others have made were not passed along, and I think > the nominees will have a responsibility to help ensure that these are > addressed. It was good to read from our CGI.br friends that this is > also a priority condition of their participation. > > As as concerns Best Bits and more particularly the Civil Society > Coordination Group that we are part of, there is not strong enough > support for us to run our own nomination process, and it would be > redundant to do so. However, what the CSCG can do is to advise the > organisers which candidates, from amongst those who self-nominated > through its process, should be selected - rather than allowing the > organisers to cherry-pick. In doing that, a very strong message about > our concerns can also be passed back to them for action. On just technical grounds; I could not see any essential difference between the option that is being dropped and one which is said to still being considered. As i read it, the option that is being dropped is - the CSCG would have called for nominations, would have selected some and passed the names to the NMI organisers for the final selection/ designation. And the option still being considered is - People nominate themselves directly to NMI organisers (presumably a lot of them being the same who would have sent their nominations to the CSCG), and now the selection is done jointly by CSCG and NMI organisers (mentioned as CSCG advising NMI organisers) and then the final product comes out... Other than that NMI organisers join CSCG to do the first level selection itself, I dont see the difference. And if this is the only real difference, what does CS gain by going ahead with the second option. We still give the initiative our legitimacy - which 'to do or not' has been the real issue here - but have less leverage in deciding the final slate. I am entirely missing the point here.. And why this convoluted scheme of things. Why not just tell them, well we could not agree to be part of the nomination process. Good luck to you.. parminder > > The CSCG is deliberating upon this now, but based on the discussions on > this list and the messages given both in favour and against > participation, the most broadly acceptable option seems for us to > support that compromise. But let's see whether the other members of the > Civil Society Coordination Group (besides JNC) agree on that - if not, > we will not participate even to the extent of recommending candidates > who have self-nominated. Either way, we should know by tomorrow and I > will write back to this list then with more news then. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Nov 26 04:55:02 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:55:02 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council Message-ID: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> Dear Civil Society members, After a substantial consultation with members across many different constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at this time. For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must complete the form which can be found at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined in the letter below. Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective involvement. Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the Internet Governance Forum. On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad civil society support. OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be participating with us in this exercise. The process we have agreed to work with is 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s suitability. 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) meeting with CSCG Nomcom 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. CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council: 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and what that implies. 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work. 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the Coordination Council. Sincerely, CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council Participating member coalitions Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet Governance Programmes Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, NCSG Executive Committee Ian Peter, Independent Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 26 11:14:21 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:44:21 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF itself. This could be aparadigm shift and a historic dayfor the global governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way. The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness of the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming too uncomfortable and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of the Internet's power establishment. (In the short term, this will help them address WSIS plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long terms gains as well.) Being able to win global popular support was extremely unlikely with the kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, which is increasingly common knowledge. Such democratic seekings are passe, really old-fashioned. And so they went for the easier catch - the global elite. It is an elite which often already identifies with a certain US centric global cosmopolitan-ism (grudging accepting the the US centred-ness of this global cultural phenomenon and hoping to cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even if some of them do not so accept - like some kinds of political and economic elites outside the US - it is ready to make power-for-power big deals and adjustments. That is what the World Economic Forum is, and everyone know this fact. But this is something to which a big part of civil society involved in the IG space today professed a complete blindness. In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on it, the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in any case has been one of the most significant elements of the global politics around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship between the globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at least aspirational upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, well, rather constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in the same territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, captured in the phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a combination of political, economic and social elites of the world, and across the world (with its continuous demeaning of the nation state while taking all the benefit of its institutions). This political combination now has a clear home at the WEF, and in it, a clear symbol as well. It is spine-chilling to think what kind of deals and compromises will be worked out among the most powerful, now with the more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them. This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the status quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain possibilities of joining of forces among those outside the global Internet power configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it somewhat simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment not only a new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides those who would otherwise be together in their opposition to the US hegemony. Now the top businesses of developing countries can feel more equal with those from the US at WEF panels and working groups, and the leaders of the more powerful developing countries can be variously flattered and offered selective sops. That celebrated meeting of fat cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo op. Just the poor, the disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are missing from the forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new, means for ever greater digital control over them. The structures of controls will see minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions thrown around within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all be worse for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global paradigm is a great regression from even the status quo. The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the first to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one seeking a seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about the Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not do, about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and the exploited need to figure what they should do; what is their response to this new global Internet power configuration. But for that they first need an organised civil society to direct and lead them, because most of the existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It is a difficult situation. parminder On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Dear Civil Society members, > > After a substantial consultation with members across many different > constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and > with the conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process > of selection of self nominated civil society representatives for the > Co ordination Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). > > In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has > determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many > civil society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to > engage at this time. > > For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you > must complete the form which can be found at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together > with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that > CSCG will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as > outlined in the letter below. > > Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely > expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the > organisers outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. > > LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL > > Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, > > As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in > working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s > participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by > accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, > that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should > nominate our own representatives. > > Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting > with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail > itself of this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a > difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very > significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about > the merits of our prospective involvement. > > Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the > World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic > and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; > that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that > privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that > devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other > processes such as the Internet Governance Forum. > > On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for > civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism > (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. > Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder > Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards > the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, > does enjoy broad civil society support. > > OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS > > In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from > civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination > Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of > principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather > that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and > respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that > position and will not be participating with us in this exercise. > > The process we have agreed to work with is > > 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review > all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each > candidate’s suitability. > > 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and > submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. > > 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) > meeting with CSCG Nomcom 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. > > CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS > > Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising > partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst > those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, > we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives > are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination > Council: > > 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, > WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination > Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the > above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of > the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are > not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for > such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself > should approve any permanent seats and what that implies. > > 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council > is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to > point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not > represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative > should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and > deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society > back from advocating necessary reforms. > > 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial > Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive > statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement > itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not > see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward > to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a > bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work. > > 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be > the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet > Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for > general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If > the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that > currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be > facilitated, not opposed. > > 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement > is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. > > We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted > with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to > select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society > nominees to join the Coordination Council. > > Sincerely, > > *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council * > > ** > > *Participating member coalitions* > > Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia > Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director > > Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member > > Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet > Governance Programmes > > Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, > Co-Coordinator > > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin > Gross, NCSG Executive Committee > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 12:25:35 2014 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:25:35 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, I think Ian has managed to express in a very balanced and respectful manner the very diverse perspectives within civil society, including yours (and the JNC), by explicitly mentioning the reservations and the caution with which some people and CS groups accept to engage in the NMI exercise. I think he deserves more credit than what you express in response. My understanding of democracy is neither the domination of the majority, nor the veto of a minority. We see too often what this produces at national levels. In the present case, some actors are willing to give it a try after having, I think, carefully pondered the opinions you expressed. It is your full right to disagree but not your right to prevent them from exercising their willing choice or demean them by claiming they have "betrayed the powerless". Only time will tell whether they were wrong or not. As a general note, I still fail to see, after several years, whether you want to propose any other mechanism than traditional intergovernmental processes - limited to representatives from governments - as the proper architecture for the democratic Internet governance you desire. If you have other ideas, we are certainly all interested in innovative frameworks that would be different from what is attempted here with the NMI. If not, what place do you see in such purely governmental processes for civil society? None? Or just outside of the room? Tell me if I missed something here. More generally, I wonder what makes you have faith in the capacity of purely intergovernmental fora to achieve progress in the absence of sufficient agreement among all governments? In the past ten years, such fora have hardly produced anything more than copy and paste of various paragraphs of the WSIS documents (I know from experience, having contributed to several of CSTD drafting exercises, for instance). The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do not have universal membership. We need solutions for key issues and we currently do not have the proper structures and processes to address them. The NETmundial Initiative is certainly not perfect, but it is at least an effort to keep the momentum produced by he Sao Paulo event and it does not pretend to have a monopoly. Nobody prevents anyone from initiating competing efforts. But doing nothing does not seem a viable or valuable option. Respectfully Bertrand "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.comtwitter @IJurisdiction | @bdelachapelle mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE PROCESS] On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, parminder wrote: > > It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with > the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF > itself. This could be a paradigm shift and a historic day for the global > governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way. > > The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have > achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for > them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness of > the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming too uncomfortable > and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of the Internet's > power establishment. (In the short term, this will help them address WSIS > plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long terms gains as well.) > Being able to win global popular support was extremely unlikely with the > kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, which is increasingly common > knowledge. Such democratic seekings are passe, really old-fashioned. And so > they went for the easier catch - the global elite. It is an elite which > often already identifies with a certain US centric global cosmopolitan-ism > (grudging accepting the the US centred-ness of this global cultural > phenomenon and hoping to cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even if some > of them do not so accept - like some kinds of political and economic elites > outside the US - it is ready to make power-for-power big deals and > adjustments. That is what the World Economic Forum is, and everyone know > this fact. But this is something to which a big part of civil society > involved in the IG space today professed a complete blindness. > > In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on it, > the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in any > case has been one of the most significant elements of the global politics > around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship between the > globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at least aspirational > upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, well, rather > constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in the same > territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, captured in the > phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a combination of political, > economic and social elites of the world, and across the world (with its > continuous demeaning of the nation state while taking all the benefit of > its institutions). This political combination now has a clear home at the > WEF, and in it, a clear symbol as well. It is spine-chilling to think what > kind of deals and compromises will be worked out among the most powerful, > now with the more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them. > > This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may > be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the status > quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain possibilities > of joining of forces among those outside the global Internet power > configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it somewhat > simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment not only a > new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides those who would > otherwise be together in their opposition to the US hegemony. Now the top > businesses of developing countries can feel more equal with those from the > US at WEF panels and working groups, and the leaders of the more powerful > developing countries can be variously flattered and offered selective sops. > That celebrated meeting of fat cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo > op. Just the poor, the disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are > missing from the forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new, > means for ever greater digital control over them. The structures of > controls will see minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions > thrown around within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all > be worse for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global > paradigm is a great regression from even the status quo. > > The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the first > to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one seeking a > seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about the > Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God > forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not do, > about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and the > exploited need to figure what they should do; what is their response to > this new global Internet power configuration. But for that they first need > an organised civil society to direct and lead them, because most of the > existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It is a difficult > situation. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Dear Civil Society members, > > > > After a substantial consultation with members across many different > constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the > conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection > of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination > Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). > > > > In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has > determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil > society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at > this time. > > > > For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must > complete the form which can be found at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together > with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG > will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined > in the letter below. > > > > Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely > expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers > outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. > > > > LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL > > > > Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, > > > > As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working > with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the > NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, > drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the > Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. > > > > Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting > with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of > this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult > question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings > across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective > involvement. > > > > Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the > World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and > political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the > Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its > three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and > resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the > Internet Governance Forum. > > > > On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil > society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not > the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite > significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement > stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the > process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad > civil society support. > > > > OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS > > > > In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from > civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination > Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle > that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil > society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our > colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be > participating with us in this exercise. > > > > The process we have agreed to work with is > > > > 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all > nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s > suitability. > > 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and > submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. > > 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) meeting > with CSCG Nomcom 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. > > > > CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS > > > > Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising partners > to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those who > self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also outline > five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely to affirm > following their appointment to the Coordination Council: > > > > 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF > and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and > what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations > are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its > first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding > support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that > the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and > what that implies. > > > > 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is > "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out > that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the > fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to > legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and > should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. > > > > 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial > Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of > Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges > that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap > as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or > augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to > undertake this work. > > > > 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the > extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet > Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general > multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF > develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not > fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. > > > > 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is > providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. > > > > We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with > these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a > balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the > Coordination Council. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council * > > > > *Participating member coalitions* > > > > Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia > Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director > > > > Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member > > > > Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet > Governance Programmes > > > > Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator > > > > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, > NCSG Executive Committee > > > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 01:59:32 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 01:59:32 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU Plenipot] Recap Oct 29 - Nov 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Note that regarding Res 64 the background (not spoken) issue is exports control. For an overview see this article: http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Translating_Norms_to_the_Digital_Age_Final.pdf C On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > This is to give an update of the ongoing discussions at the ITU PP14. > > Civil society in Busan have participated in many debates outlined below, > through their national delegations or informal discussions with other > delegates. It would be great if colleagues following particular discussions > could expand or reflect on the summary presented below. On a general note, > with 4 days to go, most people seem to think that compromises have been > reached sooner than expected. > > A number of us participated in the second meeting with the outgoing ITU > Secretary General, which was largely seen as an ITU PR-stunt. In order to > ensure continuity, an informal meeting of CS reps with the Secretary > General elect, Mr. Zhao, is expected to take place in the next few days. If > you have suggestions for what issues should be raised at that meeting, > share them here. > > Hope this is useful. > > Best, > Lea > > > --- > > *Process* > At the beginning of Week 3 of the Plenipot, most ad hoc working groups > (AHGs) dealing with specific proposals are wrapping up. Many AHGs have > already agreed text, which has been sent to Committee 5 (COM5), Committee 6 > (COM6), and the Plenary Working Group (WGPL). Once agreed in an ad hoc, the > text rarely gets re-opened for discussion in the Committees or WGPL, and > even more rarely in the Plenary. > > > Discussions > > What follows is an overview of main discussions divided by relevant AHGs. > The list is not exhaustive. For a visual representation of various AHGs > pertaining to the WGPL, see this useful chart > created by Samantha > Dickinson (who has also been diligently > live-tweeting the meeting). > > COM5 AHG on draft new resolution on counterfeit devices > > Status: Ad hoc closed, text > sent > to COM5 which will consider it on Monday afternoon. > > Highlights: > > - > > All references to ‘unauthorised devices’ have been dropped so the > resolution is now only about counterfeit devices. > - > > References to a device database in which all telecommunications/ICT > would need to be registered, are removed from the document; > - > > Problematic language on combating counterfeit is now balanced by > reference to taking into consideration ‘importance of maintaining user > connectivity’ (which is very similar to the BB recommendation). This means > that in combating counterfeit equipment, countries should not simply > disconnect all counterfeit devices without considering how this affects > user connectivity, which is great win for end-users. > - > > We did not manage to get references to IMEI and other unique > identifiers completely out of the text, but it doesn't seem that this will > do much harm or increase mandate of ITU, since this is mostly regulated via > national legislation and regulation and the provision on the consideration > of end-user connectivity. ITU-T also already has a strong standard on this > (namely X.1255 which can be found here: > http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1255-201309-I > > > > AHGs on ITU openness and transparency (Decisions 11 & 12, New Decision on > Access to ITU documents) > > Status: Ad hoc on access to documents closed, text > > agreed by COM5; Ad hoc on Decision 11 > > (opening up CWGs) ongoing, next to meet on Monday afternoon. > > Highlights: > > COM5 AHG on access to documents (New decision): > > - > > Member States agreed on the broad principle that the ITU needs to be > more transparent and that more of its documents should be open to the > public. > - > > They disagreed on how this should be done in practice (what the > official policy would look like), who should take the decision, and the > appropriate timeframe. > - > > The agreed text decides to open all input and output documents of ITU > conference and assemblies starting in 2015. It then instructs one of the > Council Working Groups to draft a policy to present to the Council for > consideration. The Council can then, on an interim basis, decide to > implement the policy, as appropriate. The final decision on policy to be > taken at PP 2018. > > > WGPL AHG on Council Working Groups (CWGs) & CWG Internet (Decision 11): > > - > > [Currently, all CWGs are open to all ITU Member States; some are open > to Sector Members; none are open to observers. CWG-Internet is only open to > Member States. Best Bits submitted a request to open this CWG in 2013, > which was denied by Council.] > - > > Proposals from Europe and US ask for all CWGs to be open to all Member > States and Sector members, and for CWG-Internet to be open to all > stakeholders. There is no agreement on this and discussions are ongoing. > > > WGPL AHG on Resolution 130 (Strengthening the role of ITU in building > confidence and security in the use of ICTs) > > Status: Ad hoc closed, text > to > be presented for WGPL consideration on Monday afternoon. > > Highlights: > > - > > The agreed text does not diverge greatly from the original Resolution > 130 – an outcome that is most aligned with proposals from those who > advocated a ‘no-change’ approach to this Resolution (US, Europe); > - > > Proposals to include references to privacy and human rights have been > resisted; > - > > Proposals for the ITU to come up with a roadmap for dealing with > cybersecurity have equally been resisted, > > > WGPL AGH on Internet-related resolutions (Res 101, Res 102, Res 133, Res > 180, and new proposals) > > Status: Ad hoc closed. Texts to be considered by WGPL on Monday > afternoon. Status of texts as of Nov 2 is available here > > (updated text from Nov 3 not yet online). > > Highlights: > > - > > Compromise text was reached on all Internet-related resolutions, with > minor revisions, some slight improvements, and a limited concession on the > side of the US/Europe to acknowledge more explicitly the role of the ITU in > Internet-related issues (particularly in Res 102); > - > > It was also agreed that the ITU should take a more conservative > approach to opening up the CWG Internet. On that point, it was agreed that > CWG Internet will hold open consultations on various agenda items prior to > CWG meetings, but otherwise the doors of the CWG will stay closed to > non-Member States; > - > > The 4 newly proposed resolutions have been withdrawn, including the > controversial Indian proposal (IND/98), which will nevertheless get a > mention in the Chairman's report, > > > WGPL AHG on Res 174 (ITU's role with regard to international public policy > issues relating to the risk of illicit use of ICTs) > > Status: Ad hoc closed, text > > agreed by WGPL > > Highlights: > > - > > Outcome document has been boiled down to awareness raising and > sticking to the ITU’s existing mandate in combatting illicit use of ICTs; > - > > All references to ‘global charter’ related to security of ICTs have > been dropped, > > > WGPL AHG on WSIS related resolutions (Res 140, Res 172) > > Status: Ad hoc on WSIS reached agreement on Res 140 text > , > which was subsequently considered and approved by WGPL. Res 172 has been > supressed. > > Highlights: > > - > > The group decided to supress Resolution 172 (reasons: text seen as > out-dated and otherwise covered in Res 140), which was subsequently > approved by WGPL. > - > > The agreed text of Res 140 resolves that ITU continues its > facilitating role in the WSIS process, subject to UNGA 2015 WSIS Review, > and continues being the lead facilitator in relevant WSIS Action Lines as > specified in the Tunis Agenda (C2, C5, C6). The resolution encourages the > UNGA overall review to take into account ITU’s review of the WSIS, > including the outcome doc of WSIS+10 High Level Event. > > > WGPL AHG on Res 64 (Non-discriminatory access) > Status: Ad hoc closed, proposed text to be considered by WGPL on Monday > afternoon > Highlights: > > - > > It is also worth noting the discussion on Resolution 64 > , > which has spurred a stand off between Cuba and others in relation to > non-discriminatory access to ICTs. For context, similar discussions have, > arguably, led to the break-down of WCIT. It now seems that a compromise > text has been found and should be presented to WGPL on Monday afternoon. > > > ---- > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Wed Nov 26 12:49:39 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:49:39 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <83EE0753-1DD6-4956-8B5A-5173F68F756A@consensus.pro> For what it is worth, I would say the high water mark in international policy related to the Internet is not at these places, but the recognition of the Human Rights Council that all rights apply equally online and offline, and of General Comment 34 to the ICCPR. The WSIS-related fora may have done little vis a vis the Internet in the last decade but increasingly these fora are not where the action is related to Internet policy, either. Post-Snowden the traditional fora like the ITU are less and less significant. > On 26 Nov 2014, at 12:25, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do not have universal membership. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 12:52:57 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:52:57 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Very many thanks, Bertrand What I was confused about is the idea that IGC and BB are now institutions that "want to join" NMI. I have been under the impression that these are Civil Society platforms for action. My stand has been clear, if there are people who are willing to engage in a certain course (whatever their reasons are) then the platforms should facilitate that. One does not necessarily need to agree all the time with what others are doing. People should be free to engage People should be free to disengage People should be free not to engage I dont think that there will ever be a time when one person (or a group of persons for that matter) will be able to fully represent all the aspirations of the global civil society. Nnenna On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I think Ian has managed to express in a very balanced and respectful > manner the very diverse perspectives within civil society, including yours > (and the JNC), by explicitly mentioning the reservations and the caution > with which some people and CS groups accept to engage in the NMI exercise. > I think he deserves more credit than what you express in response. > > My understanding of democracy is neither the domination of the majority, > nor the veto of a minority. We see too often what this produces at national > levels. In the present case, some actors are willing to give it a try after > having, I think, carefully pondered the opinions you expressed. It is your > full right to disagree but not your right to prevent them from exercising > their willing choice or demean them by claiming they have "betrayed the > powerless". Only time will tell whether they were wrong or not. > > As a general note, I still fail to see, after several years, whether you > want to propose any other mechanism than traditional intergovernmental > processes - limited to representatives from governments - as the proper > architecture for the democratic Internet governance you desire. If you have > other ideas, we are certainly all interested in innovative frameworks that > would be different from what is attempted here with the NMI. If not, what > place do you see in such purely governmental processes for civil society? > None? Or just outside of the room? Tell me if I missed something here. > > More generally, I wonder what makes you have faith in the capacity of > purely intergovernmental fora to achieve progress in the absence of > sufficient agreement among all governments? In the past ten years, such > fora have hardly produced anything more than copy and paste of various > paragraphs of the WSIS documents (I know from experience, having > contributed to several of CSTD drafting exercises, for instance). > > The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken > by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do > not have universal membership. > > We need solutions for key issues and we currently do not have the proper > structures and processes to address them. The NETmundial Initiative is > certainly not perfect, but it is at least an effort to keep the momentum > produced by he Sao Paulo event and it does not pretend to have a monopoly. > Nobody prevents anyone from initiating competing efforts. But doing nothing > does not seem a viable or valuable option. > > Respectfully > > Bertrand > > > > > > "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND > DE LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail > bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.com > twitter @IJurisdiction | > @bdelachapelle mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 > 33 32www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER > DIALOGUE PROCESS] > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with >> the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF >> itself. This could be a paradigm shift and a historic day for the global >> governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way. >> >> The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have >> achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for >> them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness >> of the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming too >> uncomfortable and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of >> the Internet's power establishment. (In the short term, this will help them >> address WSIS plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long terms gains >> as well.) Being able to win global popular support was extremely unlikely >> with the kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, which is increasingly >> common knowledge. Such democratic seekings are passe, really old-fashioned. >> And so they went for the easier catch - the global elite. It is an elite >> which often already identifies with a certain US centric global >> cosmopolitan-ism (grudging accepting the the US centred-ness of this global >> cultural phenomenon and hoping to cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even >> if some of them do not so accept - like some kinds of political and >> economic elites outside the US - it is ready to make power-for-power big >> deals and adjustments. That is what the World Economic Forum is, and >> everyone know this fact. But this is something to which a big part of civil >> society involved in the IG space today professed a complete blindness. >> >> In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on it, >> the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in any >> case has been one of the most significant elements of the global politics >> around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship between the >> globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at least aspirational >> upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, well, rather >> constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in the same >> territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, captured in the >> phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a combination of political, >> economic and social elites of the world, and across the world (with its >> continuous demeaning of the nation state while taking all the benefit of >> its institutions). This political combination now has a clear home at the >> WEF, and in it, a clear symbol as well. It is spine-chilling to think what >> kind of deals and compromises will be worked out among the most powerful, >> now with the more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them. >> >> This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may >> be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the status >> quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain possibilities >> of joining of forces among those outside the global Internet power >> configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it somewhat >> simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment not only a >> new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides those who would >> otherwise be together in their opposition to the US hegemony. Now the top >> businesses of developing countries can feel more equal with those from the >> US at WEF panels and working groups, and the leaders of the more powerful >> developing countries can be variously flattered and offered selective sops. >> That celebrated meeting of fat cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo >> op. Just the poor, the disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are >> missing from the forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new, >> means for ever greater digital control over them. The structures of >> controls will see minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions >> thrown around within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all >> be worse for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global >> paradigm is a great regression from even the status quo. >> >> The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the first >> to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one seeking a >> seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about the >> Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God >> forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not do, >> about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and the >> exploited need to figure what they should do; what is their response to >> this new global Internet power configuration. But for that they first need >> an organised civil society to direct and lead them, because most of the >> existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It is a difficult >> situation. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Civil Society members, >> >> >> >> After a substantial consultation with members across many different >> constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >> (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the >> conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection >> of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination >> Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). >> >> >> >> In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has >> determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil >> society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at >> this time. >> >> >> >> For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must >> complete the form which can be found at >> https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together >> with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG >> will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined >> in the letter below. >> >> >> >> Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely >> expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers >> outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. >> >> >> >> LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL >> >> >> >> Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, >> >> >> >> As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group >> (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working >> with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the >> NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, >> drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the >> Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. >> >> >> >> Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting >> with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of >> this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult >> question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings >> across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective >> involvement. >> >> >> >> Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the >> World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and >> political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the >> Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its >> three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and >> resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the >> Internet Governance Forum. >> >> >> >> On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil >> society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not >> the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite >> significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement >> stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the >> process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad >> civil society support. >> >> >> >> OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS >> >> >> >> In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from >> civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination >> Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle >> that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil >> society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our >> colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be >> participating with us in this exercise. >> >> >> >> The process we have agreed to work with is >> >> >> >> 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all >> nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s >> suitability. >> >> 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and >> submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. >> >> 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) >> meeting with CSCG Nomcom 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. >> >> >> >> CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS >> >> >> >> Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising >> partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those >> who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also >> outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely >> to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council: >> >> >> >> 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF >> and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and >> what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations >> are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its >> first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding >> support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that >> the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and >> what that implies. >> >> >> >> 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is >> "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out >> that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the >> fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to >> legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and >> should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. >> >> >> >> 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial >> Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of >> Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges >> that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap >> as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or >> augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to >> undertake this work. >> >> >> >> 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the >> extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet >> Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general >> multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF >> develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not >> fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. >> >> >> >> 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is >> providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. >> >> >> >> We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with >> these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a >> balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the >> Coordination Council. >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council * >> >> >> >> *Participating member coalitions* >> >> >> >> Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia >> Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director >> >> >> >> Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member >> >> >> >> Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet >> Governance Programmes >> >> >> >> Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, >> Co-Coordinator >> >> >> >> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, >> NCSG Executive Committee >> >> >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: From anriette at apc.org Wed Nov 26 14:07:02 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:07:02 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] APrIGF 2015 Macau - Call for Themes & Workshop Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <547624D6.5030907@apc.org> I am so impressed to see this call go out so early and also to see the method of crowdsourcing themes from the community being applied. Great work Nica and wishing you all well with this process. Anriette On 14/11/2014 20:47, Nica Dumlao wrote: > > Dear BestBits community, > > Please find below the call for session proposals and themes for the > 2015 Asia Pacific Regional IGF. > > Hope to have more CSOs in this regional space this time. > > > All the best, > Nica > > > -------------------------- > Nica Dumlao > Internet Rights Coordinator > Foundation for Media Alternatives > > Unit 209 #77 Xavierville Ave. cor. B. Gonzalez St. > Lyola Heights, Quezon City, PH 1108 > > +632 435 6684 > +63915 979 2894 > > skype id: nicadumlao > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Rigf_discuss] APrIGF 2015 Macau - Call for Themes & Workshop > Proposals > From: APrIGF Secretariat > To: msg at aprigf.asia > CC: discuss at aprigf.asia > > > *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum* > *APrIGF 2015 Macau* > *30 Jun - 3 Jul 2015* > *Venetian Hotel Macao* > http://2015.rigf.asia > > *Open Call for Themes and Workshop Proposals* > > Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) is one of the > key regional initiatives on Internet governance which provides an open > platform for multi-stakeholders to discuss and identify issues and > priorities, and ultimately advances the development of Internet > governance in the Asia Pacific region as well as bring forward and > contribute to the wider global Internet community. > > Hosted by HNET.Asia, the registry for the ccTLD of Macau (.mo), APrIGF > 2015 will be held from 30 Jun (Tue) to 3 Jul (Fri) at > the Venetian Hotel Macao in conjunction with an annual local > telecommunications event - CommuniMacao (3-5 Jul). With the many > recent developments of the Internet such as the IANA stewardship > transition and the discussion of post-2015 development agenda, etc, > APrIGF 2015 will definitely be the good platform for all these > important discussions. > > Our Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group(MSG) now would like to call upon > the community to contribute to the program development process and > suggest any thematic issues or topic of discussions as well as > pre-events or workshop proposals for 2015! > > *Online Submission Form: *(http://2015.rigf.asia/theme-submissions/) > *Thematic Suggestion Deadline: *4 Dec 2014 (Thu) > *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline:* 11 Mar 2015 (Wed) > > /**Travel support will be available with partial subsidies provided to > selected APrIGF delegates. An application process will be announced in > due course./ > > If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat > at sec at aprigf.asia . > > * > If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and > discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing > list discuss at aprigf.asia by sending in > subscription request. > > We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. > Please contact sec at aprigf.asia for more > information. > * > > Best Regards, > Secretariat of APrIGF > http://www.aprigf.asia > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From anriette at apc.org Wed Nov 26 14:27:01 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 21:27:01 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> Message-ID: <54762985.2010101@apc.org> Thanks for this Ian, and to others on the CSCG. This was a difficult process and I feel you handled it with care and fairness. Anriette On 26/11/2014 11:55, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Dear Civil Society members, > > > > After a substantial consultation with members across many different > constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination > Group (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and > with the conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process > of selection of self nominated civil society representatives for the > Co ordination Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). > > > > In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has > determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many > civil society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to > engage at this time. > > > > For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you > must complete the form which can be found at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together > with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that > CSCG will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as > outlined in the letter below. > > > > Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely > expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the > organisers outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. > > > > LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL > > > > Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, > > > > As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group > (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in > working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s > participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by > accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, > that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should > nominate our own representatives. > > > > Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting > with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail > itself of this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a > difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very > significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about > the merits of our prospective involvement. > > > > Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the > World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic > and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; > that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that > privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that > devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other > processes such as the Internet Governance Forum. > > > > On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for > civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism > (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. > Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder > Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards > the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, > does enjoy broad civil society support. > > > > OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS > > > > In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from > civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination > Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of > principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather > that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and > respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that > position and will not be participating with us in this exercise. > > > > The process we have agreed to work with is > > > > 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review > all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each > candidate’s suitability. > > 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and > submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. > > 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) > meeting with CSCG Nomcom 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. > > > > CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS > > > > Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising > partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst > those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, > we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives > are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination > Council: > > > > 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, > WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination > Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the > above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of > the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are > not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for > such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself > should approve any permanent seats and what that implies. > > > > 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council > is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to > point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not > represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative > should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and > deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society > back from advocating necessary reforms. > > > > 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial > Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive > statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement > itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not > see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward > to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a > bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work. > > > > 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be > the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet > Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for > general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If > the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that > currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be > facilitated, not opposed. > > > > 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement > is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. > > > > We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted > with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to > select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society > nominees to join the Coordination Council. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council * > > ** > > *Participating member coalitions* > > > > Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia > Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director > > > > Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member > > > > Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet > Governance Programmes > > > > Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, > Co-Coordinator > > > > The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin > Gross, NCSG Executive Committee > > > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 15:49:24 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:49:24 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: <54762985.2010101@apc.org> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> Message-ID: <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> Rather than focusing on a specific set of processes (that of the CSCG) or the actions of an individual within that process, which I have no doubt were conducted with the highest degrees of probity and judiciousness, I think the follow up-discussion to the taking of a position by certain segments of IG CS should be to address the substance and the consequences of that commitment into which IG CS has apparently now entered. The issue being addressed is extremely simple and straightforward. Will Internet Governance associated Civil Society engage with and thus endorse/validate/legitimate the WEF/ICANN initiated process for responding to Internet Governance issues beyond the simply technical? That this discussion with the NMI has been primarily about ensuring the engagement and thus legitimation by CS of the NMI is quite clear from the last minute efforts to cloak the initiative in the presumed civil society legitimacy of CGI.br. That the particular details of that engagement/legitimation by CS are of little concern to the NMI is also quite evident from their eagerness to negotiate with the CSCG and apparently make whatever concessions were necessary in order to ensure that engagement. By engaging in the NMI process under whatever conditions and limitations, it should be quite clear that IG CS has endorsed and legitimated the NMI global (Internet) Governance process. The consequences of this action and this “commitment” are potentially extremely, even historically significant. (Suggesting that one can change one’s mind and withdraw half way through the process is simply a face-saving device.) The WEF in its various presentations and documents is quite transparent that they have every intention of introducing similar such processes throughout the entire range of global issues. They have also made it quite evident that these processes will actively include the global corporate sector and given the nature of the WEF one presumes that this will consist of (and from their perspective be restricted to) the global corporate and other elites. It is quite clear that IG CS has endorsed and legitimated the global elite’s corporatist agenda. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:27 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council Thanks for this Ian, and to others on the CSCG. This was a difficult process and I feel you handled it with care and fairness. Anriette On 26/11/2014 11:55, Ian Peter wrote: Dear Civil Society members, After a substantial consultation with members across many different constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI). In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at this time. For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must complete the form which can be found at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined in the letter below. Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers outlining CSCG’s position and involvement. LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi, As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives. Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of this opportunity at all. We must say that this has been a difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective involvement. Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the Internet Governance Forum. On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad civil society support. OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be participating with us in this exercise. The process we have agreed to work with is 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s suitability. 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) meeting with CSCG Nomcom 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. CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council: 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and what that implies. 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms. 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work. 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed. 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies. We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the Coordination Council. Sincerely, CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council Participating member coalitions Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet Governance Programmes Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross, NCSG Executive Committee Ian Peter, Independent Chair ____________________________________________________________ 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: From deborah at apc.org Wed Nov 26 18:28:24 2014 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:28:24 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age Message-ID: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Dear all, The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will be officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. But there is good text there, building on last year, and new language encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the creation of a special procedure on the right to privacy. Here is APC's statement on the resolution: https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution Brazil: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf Germany: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf Kind regards, Deborah -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUdmIYAAoJEPeieloNaneNZDwQAMnaGdostjGahI1kyOuMRNoK i02Qu0Ng9njl20gAcEql1LayfnUKSZ2JeRlOWPhr5khjWNanqjit53rGrbbV9gzV ObT/L/DMZueN0jzgu9WrX/8tfe6zPev6JaoSrhmDKeNZSB5FPXPYFDoJ48b0EOPR TXz1zdW3nu1F10csGhXhlxFCbAgsArzoFW6zgXiP/YMAeNe0l7ExGWkTaIOs9VY6 ctF0cAMrep8WTUTfGNh1kUnCbDd8YLTcN3nOQsEhszB/7JSxM0yH8W5zhrHWiJzF Ng7M+ZhgpAEWwmTsHX15AHu7evW4YUpYn7IqIlgjS0wmPZSyd0h/5nJYBGTPOBad jBBu9HIhbBEAlvazNQfQ+89WVbRql8D41XYVYBBA0FucEcGBGLRfiXjI24xWmqqL Bf1dlryzqYfQ+uYO4u1Xugg73klXVJH4pnl0xU6AC+uuSWVuqC8xjVEeobGKcmPo TpNGb+74RswBpdpsx7J3jyKCqYwHieyROfW6pvxZhBM/KSGQRZh43jEZfxUvhMj6 GZySI6VLcnHDxlDwY0yCXhX8mF+egZvIjrfAenI6bCrBavuud0mFzooefFut/IZY 7ZCns65JakMHoifm8T+wZx3VccSj6Dn3BcggG3rU9cZ9h7Q5TZucFgHqHhr87BpC R2XTsDc5e8O0YqLszn0A =OHRJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From renata at webfoundation.org Wed Nov 26 18:47:43 2014 From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 00:47:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age In-Reply-To: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> References: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> Message-ID: ​Great news! Any idea on the best way to follow up? Renata On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Dear all, > > The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the right > to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will be > officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just > procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. But > there is good text there, building on last year, and new language > encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the creation of a > special procedure on the right to privacy. > > Here is APC's statement on the resolution: > https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 > > And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution > > Brazil: > http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf > > Germany: > http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUdmIYAAoJEPeieloNaneNZDwQAMnaGdostjGahI1kyOuMRNoK > i02Qu0Ng9njl20gAcEql1LayfnUKSZ2JeRlOWPhr5khjWNanqjit53rGrbbV9gzV > ObT/L/DMZueN0jzgu9WrX/8tfe6zPev6JaoSrhmDKeNZSB5FPXPYFDoJ48b0EOPR > TXz1zdW3nu1F10csGhXhlxFCbAgsArzoFW6zgXiP/YMAeNe0l7ExGWkTaIOs9VY6 > ctF0cAMrep8WTUTfGNh1kUnCbDd8YLTcN3nOQsEhszB/7JSxM0yH8W5zhrHWiJzF > Ng7M+ZhgpAEWwmTsHX15AHu7evW4YUpYn7IqIlgjS0wmPZSyd0h/5nJYBGTPOBad > jBBu9HIhbBEAlvazNQfQ+89WVbRql8D41XYVYBBA0FucEcGBGLRfiXjI24xWmqqL > Bf1dlryzqYfQ+uYO4u1Xugg73klXVJH4pnl0xU6AC+uuSWVuqC8xjVEeobGKcmPo > TpNGb+74RswBpdpsx7J3jyKCqYwHieyROfW6pvxZhBM/KSGQRZh43jEZfxUvhMj6 > GZySI6VLcnHDxlDwY0yCXhX8mF+egZvIjrfAenI6bCrBavuud0mFzooefFut/IZY > 7ZCns65JakMHoifm8T+wZx3VccSj6Dn3BcggG3rU9cZ9h7Q5TZucFgHqHhr87BpC > R2XTsDc5e8O0YqLszn0A > =OHRJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at apc.org Wed Nov 26 19:50:12 2014 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:50:12 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age In-Reply-To: References: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> Message-ID: <54767544.7000506@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Next the issue goes to the HRC, where there be much debate on the special procedure/rapporteur. The next session isn't until Feb/March, but there will be resistance from different sides, for different reasons. It would be good to think through strategies before then. Deborah On 11/26/14 6:47 PM, Renata Avila wrote: > ​Great news! > > Any idea on the best way to follow up? > > Renata > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Deborah Brown > wrote: > > > Dear all, > > The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the right > to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will be > officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just > procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. But > there is good text there, building on last year, and new language > encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the creation of a > special procedure on the right to privacy. > > Here is APC's statement on the resolution: https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 > > And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution > > Brazil: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf > > Germany: > http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUdnVCAAoJEPeieloNaneNd9MP/15xUJpeWPinUM/OUE6rhz0m x1Gv4a4ZKSlfO4UV36j8o3FZA00ob+MuudqSNwaJHKxP+WvO4MxGSlli/egpKOZX DhUOxVZ3x/9XYvK+PNsHam3j+tRkgLseeXX2ZjUn744EIJ4gqM1oH7TcSHu6UEF8 yxgVoR/qnIouUq2qlBHvC4+gkqJsTdI54ivLouDRVsCJwsrNEAlna9TjCy3wp7dO kSNHwK72lMEzZR6rI95/rn2QwiTeCDsY1mL6NzdZjyYkX/R/mWse4u3riMXq4NCk aLaIFp9V26+YP5Os9VOdZ7N+XoK+XjZBmS94f2GdHdJEWxcIE9LYv8vBeV9ic6ML qczzCoXD+doB5/cyogucz1vbibHuMQ1BT/52iyIBhWilwjgVvFStdTpdNy4yefDv wWAVv6/ZIYUdio+0786u6NqyuAj+ptd5+Rb3SFYpZ0hDbfPIiIuzdkL6aBXDqVLU awYp8Z477/hj9C29ns5EKr5s4kJ4duBkTIE1t4x9Q2ke/1o04ayoFuESY1survia a0wV03q/QLA6NMj8Efg1fo+F6g+T3ghzHhhZlQeaxgOA9kTWD+JqlEO9BExtPZz+ Tlhzz6N3QD0j6vUXNdiB2q9/x1YLiQv3/HmcJJ0VexILWIv9cfhko6b3AJuXf3w9 GWQuWhHqAUstHocFuVBb =Kh/+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Wed Nov 26 23:09:02 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:39:02 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age In-Reply-To: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> References: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> Message-ID: <5476A3DE.2080607@ITforChange.net> see http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/united-nations-moves-to-strengthen-digital-privacy/article6637660.ece .....Mr. Braun warned that without proper checks, “we risk turning into Orwellian states” where citizens are being constantly monitored, he told the General Assembly’s committee on human rights. The resolution was adopted by consensus by the committee and now goes before the full Assembly in December. It followed weeks of tough negotiations with Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S. — members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance — who sought to limit the resolution’s scope. The five countries are not among the 65 co-sponsors of the bill. Five Eyes = Big Brother! .... important to consider/remember this, as the Five Eyes are not amongst the countries routinely castigated by some, on these lists.... Regards Guru Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum On Thursday 27 November 2014 04:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Dear all, > > The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the right > to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will be > officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just > procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. But > there is good text there, building on last year, and new language > encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the creation of a > special procedure on the right to privacy. > > Here is APC's statement on the resolution: https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 > > And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution > > Brazil: http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf > > Germany: > http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUdmIYAAoJEPeieloNaneNZDwQAMnaGdostjGahI1kyOuMRNoK > i02Qu0Ng9njl20gAcEql1LayfnUKSZ2JeRlOWPhr5khjWNanqjit53rGrbbV9gzV > ObT/L/DMZueN0jzgu9WrX/8tfe6zPev6JaoSrhmDKeNZSB5FPXPYFDoJ48b0EOPR > TXz1zdW3nu1F10csGhXhlxFCbAgsArzoFW6zgXiP/YMAeNe0l7ExGWkTaIOs9VY6 > ctF0cAMrep8WTUTfGNh1kUnCbDd8YLTcN3nOQsEhszB/7JSxM0yH8W5zhrHWiJzF > Ng7M+ZhgpAEWwmTsHX15AHu7evW4YUpYn7IqIlgjS0wmPZSyd0h/5nJYBGTPOBad > jBBu9HIhbBEAlvazNQfQ+89WVbRql8D41XYVYBBA0FucEcGBGLRfiXjI24xWmqqL > Bf1dlryzqYfQ+uYO4u1Xugg73klXVJH4pnl0xU6AC+uuSWVuqC8xjVEeobGKcmPo > TpNGb+74RswBpdpsx7J3jyKCqYwHieyROfW6pvxZhBM/KSGQRZh43jEZfxUvhMj6 > GZySI6VLcnHDxlDwY0yCXhX8mF+egZvIjrfAenI6bCrBavuud0mFzooefFut/IZY > 7ZCns65JakMHoifm8T+wZx3VccSj6Dn3BcggG3rU9cZ9h7Q5TZucFgHqHhr87BpC > R2XTsDc5e8O0YqLszn0A > =OHRJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From avri at acm.org Thu Nov 27 00:37:26 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:37:26 +0400 Subject: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council In-Reply-To: <83EE0753-1DD6-4956-8B5A-5173F68F756A@consensus.pro> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <5475FC5D.8050700@itforchange.net> <83EE0753-1DD6-4956-8B5A-5173F68F756A@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <5476B896.2020701@acm.org> Hi, I agree about the high water mark, while noting that part of that was based on an IGF outcome to make such such a recommendation. As most thing in ecosystems, things in one part need to affect other parts. But I also argue that this recognition needs to be brought to all these other places and made an integral part of their policies and implementations otherwise they end up worthy but ineffective words. .... -> IGF -> HRC -> [ICANN, IETF, ITU, NMI, ...] -> IGF -> ... avri On 26-Nov-14 21:49, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > For what it is worth, I would say the high water mark in international policy related to the Internet is not at these places, but the recognition of the Human Rights Council that all rights apply equally online and offline, and of General Comment 34 to the ICCPR. > > The WSIS-related fora may have done little vis a vis the Internet in the last decade but increasingly these fora are not where the action is related to Internet policy, either. Post-Snowden the traditional fora like the ITU are less and less significant. > >> On 26 Nov 2014, at 12:25, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >> The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do not have universal membership. >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Nov 3 04:28:37 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 18:28:37 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU Plenipot] Recap Oct 29 - Nov 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <410A4A8C-DDA9-4B61-ADC5-00A75E7F3507@consensus.pro> This was an extremely difficult resolution to get to consensus on, and was for some time in danger of resulting in voting in Plenary on multiple resolutions. On 3 Nov 2014, at 15:59, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Note that regarding Res 64 the background (not spoken) issue is exports control. For an overview see this article: http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Translating_Norms_to_the_Digital_Age_Final.pdf > > C > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > This is to give an update of the ongoing discussions at the ITU PP14. > > Civil society in Busan have participated in many debates outlined below, through their national delegations or informal discussions with other delegates. It would be great if colleagues following particular discussions could expand or reflect on the summary presented below. On a general note, with 4 days to go, most people seem to think that compromises have been reached sooner than expected. > > A number of us participated in the second meeting with the outgoing ITU Secretary General, which was largely seen as an ITU PR-stunt. In order to ensure continuity, an informal meeting of CS reps with the Secretary General elect, Mr. Zhao, is expected to take place in the next few days. If you have suggestions for what issues should be raised at that meeting, share them here. > > Hope this is useful. > > Best, > Lea > > --- > > Process > At the beginning of Week 3 of the Plenipot, most ad hoc working groups (AHGs) dealing with specific proposals are wrapping up. Many AHGs have already agreed text, which has been sent to Committee 5 (COM5), Committee 6 (COM6), and the Plenary Working Group (WGPL). Once agreed in an ad hoc, the text rarely gets re-opened for discussion in the Committees or WGPL, and even more rarely in the Plenary. > > Discussions > What follows is an overview of main discussions divided by relevant AHGs. The list is not exhaustive. For a visual representation of various AHGs pertaining to the WGPL, see this useful chart created by Samantha Dickinson (who has also been diligently live-tweeting the meeting). > > COM5 AHG on draft new resolution on counterfeit devices > Status: Ad hoc closed, text sent to COM5 which will consider it on Monday afternoon. > Highlights: > All references to ‘unauthorised devices’ have been dropped so the resolution is now only about counterfeit devices. > References to a device database in which all telecommunications/ICT would need to be registered, are removed from the document; > Problematic language on combating counterfeit is now balanced by reference to taking into consideration ‘importance of maintaining user connectivity’ (which is very similar to the BB recommendation). This means that in combating counterfeit equipment, countries should not simply disconnect all counterfeit devices without considering how this affects user connectivity, which is great win for end-users. > We did not manage to get references to IMEI and other unique identifiers completely out of the text, but it doesn't seem that this will do much harm or increase mandate of ITU, since this is mostly regulated via national legislation and regulation and the provision on the consideration of end-user connectivity. ITU-T also already has a strong standard on this (namely X.1255 which can be found here: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1255-201309-I > > AHGs on ITU openness and transparency (Decisions 11 & 12, New Decision on Access to ITU documents) > Status: Ad hoc on access to documents closed, text agreed by COM5; Ad hoc on Decision 11 (opening up CWGs) ongoing, next to meet on Monday afternoon. > Highlights: > COM5 AHG on access to documents (New decision): > Member States agreed on the broad principle that the ITU needs to be more transparent and that more of its documents should be open to the public. > They disagreed on how this should be done in practice (what the official policy would look like), who should take the decision, and the appropriate timeframe. > The agreed text decides to open all input and output documents of ITU conference and assemblies starting in 2015. It then instructs one of the Council Working Groups to draft a policy to present to the Council for consideration. The Council can then, on an interim basis, decide to implement the policy, as appropriate. The final decision on policy to be taken at PP 2018. > > WGPL AHG on Council Working Groups (CWGs) & CWG Internet (Decision 11): > [Currently, all CWGs are open to all ITU Member States; some are open to Sector Members; none are open to observers. CWG-Internet is only open to Member States. Best Bits submitted a request to open this CWG in 2013, which was denied by Council.] > Proposals from Europe and US ask for all CWGs to be open to all Member States and Sector members, and for CWG-Internet to be open to all stakeholders. There is no agreement on this and discussions are ongoing. > > WGPL AHG on Resolution 130 (Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) > Status: Ad hoc closed, text to be presented for WGPL consideration on Monday afternoon. > Highlights: > The agreed text does not diverge greatly from the original Resolution 130 – an outcome that is most aligned with proposals from those who advocated a ‘no-change’ approach to this Resolution (US, Europe); > Proposals to include references to privacy and human rights have been resisted; > Proposals for the ITU to come up with a roadmap for dealing with cybersecurity have equally been resisted, > > WGPL AGH on Internet-related resolutions (Res 101, Res 102, Res 133, Res 180, and new proposals) > Status: Ad hoc closed. Texts to be considered by WGPL on Monday afternoon. Status of texts as of Nov 2 is available here (updated text from Nov 3 not yet online). > Highlights: > Compromise text was reached on all Internet-related resolutions, with minor revisions, some slight improvements, and a limited concession on the side of the US/Europe to acknowledge more explicitly the role of the ITU in Internet-related issues (particularly in Res 102); > It was also agreed that the ITU should take a more conservative approach to opening up the CWG Internet. On that point, it was agreed that CWG Internet will hold open consultations on various agenda items prior to CWG meetings, but otherwise the doors of the CWG will stay closed to non-Member States; > The 4 newly proposed resolutions have been withdrawn, including the controversial Indian proposal (IND/98), which will nevertheless get a mention in the Chairman's report, > > WGPL AHG on Res 174 (ITU's role with regard to international public policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of ICTs) > Status: Ad hoc closed, text agreed by WGPL > Highlights: > Outcome document has been boiled down to awareness raising and sticking to the ITU’s existing mandate in combatting illicit use of ICTs; > All references to ‘global charter’ related to security of ICTs have been dropped, > > WGPL AHG on WSIS related resolutions (Res 140, Res 172) > Status: Ad hoc on WSIS reached agreement on Res 140 text, which was subsequently considered and approved by WGPL. Res 172 has been supressed. > Highlights: > The group decided to supress Resolution 172 (reasons: text seen as out-dated and otherwise covered in Res 140), which was subsequently approved by WGPL. > The agreed text of Res 140 resolves that ITU continues its facilitating role in the WSIS process, subject to UNGA 2015 WSIS Review, and continues being the lead facilitator in relevant WSIS Action Lines as specified in the Tunis Agenda (C2, C5, C6). The resolution encourages the UNGA overall review to take into account ITU’s review of the WSIS, including the outcome doc of WSIS+10 High Level Event. > > WGPL AHG on Res 64 (Non-discriminatory access) > Status: Ad hoc closed, proposed text to be considered by WGPL on Monday afternoon > Highlights: > It is also worth noting the discussion on Resolution 64, which has spurred a stand off between Cuba and others in relation to non-discriminatory access to ICTs. For context, similar discussions have, arguably, led to the break-down of WCIT. It now seems that a compromise text has been found and should be presented to WGPL on Monday afternoon. > > ---- > > Lea Kaspar > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > gp-digital.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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 27 03:18:54 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:18:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age In-Reply-To: <5476A3DE.2080607@ITforChange.net> References: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> <5476A3DE.2080607@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <20141127091854.04d20e4a@quill> Is the actual text which the committee has agreed on available somewhere? Greetings, Norbert On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:39:02 +0530 Guru wrote: > see > http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/united-nations-moves-to-strengthen-digital-privacy/article6637660.ece > > .....Mr. Braun warned that without proper checks, “we risk turning > into Orwellian states” where citizens are being constantly monitored, > he told the General Assembly’s committee on human rights. The > resolution was adopted by consensus by the committee and now goes > before the full Assembly in December. It followed weeks of tough > negotiations with Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the > U.S. — members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance — who > sought to limit the resolution’s scope. > The five countries are not among the 65 co-sponsors of the bill. > > Five Eyes = Big Brother! .... important to consider/remember this, > as the Five Eyes are not amongst the countries routinely castigated > by some, on these lists.... > > Regards > Guru > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum > > On Thursday 27 November 2014 04:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Dear all, > > > > The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the > > right to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will > > be officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just > > procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. > > But there is good text there, building on last year, and new > > language encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the > > creation of a special procedure on the right to privacy. > > > > Here is APC's statement on the resolution: > > https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 > > > > And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution > > > > Brazil: > > http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf > > > > Germany: > > http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf > > > > Kind regards, > > Deborah From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 27 03:27:19 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:27:19 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] UNGA resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age In-Reply-To: <20141127091854.04d20e4a@quill> References: <54766218.5090208@apc.org> <5476A3DE.2080607@ITforChange.net> <20141127091854.04d20e4a@quill> Message-ID: <93815C72-2B7B-45AF-AADC-5AE588B183C9@glocom.ac.jp> On Nov 27, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Is the actual text which the committee has agreed on available > somewhere? > Adam > Greetings, > Norbert > > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:39:02 +0530 > Guru wrote: > >> see >> http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/united-nations-moves-to-strengthen-digital-privacy/article6637660.ece >> >> .....Mr. Braun warned that without proper checks, “we risk turning >> into Orwellian states” where citizens are being constantly monitored, >> he told the General Assembly’s committee on human rights. The >> resolution was adopted by consensus by the committee and now goes >> before the full Assembly in December. It followed weeks of tough >> negotiations with Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the >> U.S. — members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance — who >> sought to limit the resolution’s scope. >> The five countries are not among the 65 co-sponsors of the bill. >> >> Five Eyes = Big Brother! .... important to consider/remember this, >> as the Five Eyes are not amongst the countries routinely castigated >> by some, on these lists.... >> >> Regards >> Guru >> Gurumurthy Kasinathan >> Director, IT for Change >> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC >> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum >> >> On Thursday 27 November 2014 04:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The UN General Assembly's 3rd committee passed a resolution on the >>> right to privacy in the digital age yesterday. The resolution will >>> be officially adopted by UNGA next month, but from here it's just >>> procedural. The resolution was adopted by consensus, at some cost. >>> But there is good text there, building on last year, and new >>> language encouraging the Human Rights Council to consider the >>> creation of a special procedure on the right to privacy. >>> >>> Here is APC's statement on the resolution: >>> https://www.apc.org/en/node/20029 >>> >>> And statements from Brazil and Germany, which led this resolution >>> >>> Brazil: >>> http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655554/brazil-l26-rev1.pdf >>> >>> Germany: >>> http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655572/germany-l26-rev1.pdf >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Deborah > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From joana at varonferraz.com Fri Nov 28 02:48:25 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:48:25 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8B536798-63E8-4DC4-83E0-8B6198EDA45C@varonferraz.com> Thank you for this great idea, Wolfgang. I find it an excellent proposal to channel energy in something more concrete and organized, besides setting records of this intriguing time on internet history and perhaps moving ahead with civil society dialetics... I would have some second thoughts about the chapters list.. but I like the fact that in this framing IG institutional framework will not be debated in theory, but on issues. I fully support this idea. best joana On 28 November 2014 05:21:22 GMT-02:00, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >Hi everybody > >After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying >collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) >disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with >different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for >newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance >discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate >with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil >Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental >stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, >Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. >This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the >position. So it is about transparency and clarity. > >Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people >writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better >if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured >position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better >understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We >have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to >APC and NCUC folks. > >I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society >Internet Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups >within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that >everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured >into four main chapters: > >1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) >2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) >3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure >development etc.) >4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) > >Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) >could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would >be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). >There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present >her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of >the four main issues. > >Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the >process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events >ahead of us. > >We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main >official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions >etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would >be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the >New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of >the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the >role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be >also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. > >The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) >would be the editor. > >Any comment? > >Wolfgang -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Fri Nov 28 03:16:19 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:16:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <8B536798-63E8-4DC4-83E0-8B6198EDA45C@varonferraz.com> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8B536798-63E8-4DC4-83E0-8B6198EDA45C@varonferraz.com> Message-ID: +1 Am 28.11.2014 08:48 schrieb "Joana Varon" : > Thank you for this great idea, Wolfgang. > > I find it an excellent proposal to channel energy in something more > concrete and organized, besides setting records of this intriguing time on > internet history and perhaps moving ahead with civil society dialetics... I > would have some second thoughts about the chapters list.. but I like the > fact that in this framing IG institutional framework will not be debated in > theory, but on issues. > > I fully support this idea. > > best > > joana > > On 28 November 2014 05:21:22 GMT-02:00, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >> Hi everybody >> >> After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. >> This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the position. So it is about transparency and clarity. >> >> Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. >> >> I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters: >> >> 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) >> 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) >> 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure development etc.) >> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) >> >> Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues. >> >> Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. >> >> We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. >> >> The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) would be the editor. >> >> Any comment? >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From arbih2002us at yahoo.com Fri Nov 28 04:06:31 2014 From: arbih2002us at yahoo.com (arbih2002us at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:06:31 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council Message-ID: I totally agree with Bertrand.  At least something was started.  Still in its infancy but with great prospects for growth.  Lorin Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Nnenna Nwakanma Date: 26/11/2014 18:52 (GMT+01:00) To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," Subject: Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council Very many thanks, Bertrand What I was confused about is the idea that IGC and BB are now institutions that "want to join" NMI. I have been under the impression that these are Civil Society platforms for action. My stand has been clear, if there are people who are willing to engage in a certain course (whatever their reasons are) then the platforms should facilitate that. One does not necessarily need to agree all the time with what others are doing. People should be free to engage People should be free to disengage People should be free not to engage I dont think that there will ever be a time when one person (or a group of persons for that matter) will be able to fully represent all the aspirations of the global civil society. Nnenna On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear Parminder, I think Ian has managed to express in a very balanced and respectful manner the very diverse perspectives within civil society, including yours (and the JNC), by explicitly mentioning the reservations and the caution with which some people and CS groups accept to engage in the NMI exercise. I think he deserves more credit than what you express in response.  My understanding of democracy is neither the domination of the majority, nor the veto of a minority. We see too often what this produces at national levels. In the present case, some actors are willing to give it a try after having, I think, carefully pondered the opinions you expressed. It is your full right to disagree but not your right to prevent them from exercising their willing choice or demean them by claiming they have "betrayed the powerless". Only time will tell whether they were wrong or not.  As a general note, I still fail to see, after several years, whether you want to propose any other mechanism than traditional intergovernmental processes - limited to representatives from governments - as the proper architecture for the democratic Internet governance you desire. If you have other ideas, we are certainly all interested in innovative frameworks that would be different from what is attempted here with the NMI. If not, what place do you see in such purely governmental processes for civil society? None? Or just outside of the room? Tell me if I missed something here.  More generally, I wonder what makes you have faith in the capacity of purely intergovernmental fora to achieve progress in the absence of sufficient agreement among all governments? In the past ten years, such fora have hardly produced anything more than copy and paste of various paragraphs of the WSIS documents (I know from experience, having contributed to several of CSTD drafting exercises, for instance).  The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do not have universal membership.  We need solutions for key issues and we currently do not have the proper structures and processes to address them. The NETmundial Initiative is certainly not perfect, but it is at least an effort to keep the momentum produced by he Sao Paulo event and it does not pretend to have a monopoly. Nobody prevents anyone from initiating competing efforts. But doing nothing does not seem a viable or valuable option.  Respectfully Bertrand "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director email bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net email bdelachapelle at gmail.com twitter @IJurisdiction | @bdelachapelle mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 www.internetjurisdiction.net On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, parminder wrote: It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF itself. This could be a paradigm shift and a historic day for the global governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way. The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness of the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming  too uncomfortable and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of the Internet's power establishment. (In the short term, this will help them address WSIS plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long terms gains as well.) Being able to win global popular support was extremely unlikely with the kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, which is increasingly common knowledge. Such democratic seekings are passe, really old-fashioned. And so they went for the easier catch - the global elite. It is an elite which often already identifies with a certain US centric global cosmopolitan-ism (grudging accepting the the US centred-ness of this global cultural phenomenon and hoping to cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even if some of them do not so accept - like some kinds of political and economic elites outside the US - it is ready to make power-for-power big deals and adjustments. That is what the World Economic Forum is, and everyone know this fact. But this is something to which a big part of civil society involved in the IG space today professed a complete blindness. In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on it, the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in any case has been one of the most significant elements of the global politics around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship between the globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at least aspirational upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, well, rather constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in the same territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, captured in the phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a combination of political, economic and social elites of the world, and across the world (with its continuous demeaning of the nation state while taking all the benefit of its institutions). This political combination now has a clear home at the WEF, and in it, a clear symbol as well. It is spine-chilling to think what kind of deals and compromises will be worked out among the most powerful, now with the more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them. This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the status quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain possibilities of joining of forces among those outside the global Internet power configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it somewhat simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment not only a new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides those who would otherwise be together in their opposition to the US hegemony. Now the top businesses of developing countries can feel more equal with those from the US at WEF panels and working groups, and the leaders of the more powerful developing countries can be variously flattered and offered selective sops. That celebrated meeting of fat cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo op. Just the poor, the disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are missing from the forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new, means for ever greater digital control over them. The structures of controls will see minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions thrown around within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all be worse for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global paradigm is a great regression from even the status quo. The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the first to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one seeking a seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about the Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not do, about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and the exploited need to figure what they should  do; what is their response to this new global Internet power configuration. But for that they first need an organised civil society to direct and lead them, because most of the existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It is a difficult situation. parminder On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote:   Dear Civil Society members,   After a substantial consultation with members across many different constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI).   In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at this time.   For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must complete the form which can be found at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined in the letter below.   Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers outlining CSCG’s position and involvement.    LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL   Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi,   As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives.   Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of this opportunity at all.  We must say that this has been a difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective involvement.   Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the Internet Governance Forum.   On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad civil society support.   OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS   In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be participating with us in this exercise.   The process we have agreed to work with is   1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s suitability. 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and submits names to Transitional Council with reasons. 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) meeting with CSCG Nomcom 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.   CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS   Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council:   1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and what that implies.   2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms.   3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work.   4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed.   5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies.   We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the Coordi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri Nov 28 04:11:59 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 04:11:59 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Friday, November 28, 2014, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Hi everybody > > After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying > collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) > disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with > different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers > who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as > well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. > On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups > has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you > compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, > Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. > This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the > position. So it is about transparency and clarity. > > Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people > writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if > we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or > issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the > real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather > different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. > For what it's worth, coming from a "governmental" person (recovering from IG addiction) with an extensive history working in (and quarreling, I meant constructively engaging, with) civil society groups, I think this is an excellent idea - provided that the booklet is short, to the point, completely free of acronyms (I guess this will be the hardest part) and providing some concrete and actionable suggestions. The amount of writing that is distributed on IG mailing lists is staggering, and it's a pity that all these discussions are ultimately lost in online archives that nobody, except die-hard IG addicts, will ever check. All the best, Andrea -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Nov 28 06:59:51 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 06:59:51 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_INET_S=C3=A3o_Paulo=2C_Braz?= =?UTF-8?Q?il?= Message-ID: This is already underway. To be expected, since this is the home of the CGI.br - there will be some discussion of the NetMundial Initiative. [image: INET Sao Paolo] Today, *Friday November 28 2014* the *Internet Society * will present a full day conference *INET São Paulo, Brazil *. INET São Paulo aims to bring together regional community expertise on Internet Governance to leverage local awareness on policy mechanisms and technical issues that are key for the future of the Internet. Brazil has been in the core of Global Internet Governance discussions and is a promising location to nurture a multi-stakeholder debate. Moreover, the event will be co-located together with the *4th NIC.br’s Internet Infrastructure Week * and the *5th Privacy and Data Protection Seminar*. Remote participation is available via webex, and the event will be webcast live via the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. São Paulo is 3 hours ahead of NYC. *What: INET São Paulo, Brazil Where: Hotel Blue Tree Premium Morumbi City, São Paulo, BrazilWhen: Friday November 28 2014 8:30am-18:00pm BRST | 10:30-20:00 UTCProgram: https://www.internetsociety.org/inet-sao-paulo/sessions Webex: https://www.internetsociety.org/inet-sao-paulo/node/672 Webcast: http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/INETSaoPaulo2014 Twitter: #inetsaopaulo Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/inetsaopaolo * Comment See all comments *Permalink* *http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7251* -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Nov 28 07:43:33 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 07:43:33 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Strengthening Internet Governance: the message from the Geneva Internet Conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Roxana Radu wrote: > Today (Friday) at noon CET, join us for a webinar on Outcomes of the > ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference > I did a recording of this informative and entertaining talk. http://isoc-ny.org/misc/Diplo_ITU_Plenipot_Review_Nov-28-2014.mp4 - missed the first couple of minutes. j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 28 02:21:22 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:21:22 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] From Confusion to Clarification References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the position. So it is about transparency and clarity. Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters: 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure development etc.) 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues. Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) would be the editor. Any comment? Wolfgang From roxanageorgy at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 05:06:39 2014 From: roxanageorgy at gmail.com (Roxana Radu) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:06:39 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Strengthening Internet Governance: the message from the Geneva Internet Conference Message-ID: Dear colleagues, With one week's reflection and careful analysis of the detailed conference reporting, we are pleased to present the outcome document: *Strengthening Internet Governance: the message from the Geneva Internet Conference* The Message is multi-layered: 1. Two-page document : provides a quick overview (key messages are also listed below) 2. Additional information : points from discussions, background information 3. Detailed information : video recordings and notes from the sessions There is a also a time component to the Geneva Message: - Pre-conference discussion (September-November) - Conference discussion itself - Post-conference discussion (we will build further discussion around the Geneva Message as Vladimir Radunović (GIP) did during the Pristina cyber-forum last week and the Arab Internet Governance Forum this week). In this way, we will provide coherence, solidity, and sustainability to the conference process. Please let us know if you need any additional information. It would also be great to get feedback from your communities and suggestions for the next steps in strengthening the Geneva Message. We look forward to interacting with you further at the following GIP events: - Today (Friday) at noon CET, join us for a webinar on Outcomes of the ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference - 2 December (Tuesday) at 13:00 CET, join us online or in situ for the regular Geneva briefing - Internet Governance in November: a bubbling cauldron Jovan, Tereza, and Roxana ------------------------------ * Strengthening Internet Governance: the message from the Geneva Internet Conference* 17-19 November 2014 *1. Mapping Internet governance in a comprehensible and dynamic way* The mapping of Internet governance (IG) – identifying the issues and who deals with them – should be comprehensible and dynamic in order to facilitate easy access to IG for newcomers and improve coordination of activities among stakeholders. *More info.. * *2. Bridging policy silos * Professional and institutional policy silos exist from local to global level, both within and between institutions. Bridging them, with their different practices and vocabularies, is essential in designing and implementing effective and inclusive IG policies. These silos can be traversed using a mix of structured and ad hoc approaches, ranging from joint working groups to informal exchanges. *More info..* *3. Harvesting and harnessing IG complexity* The complexity of IG can be both a threat and an enabler. As a threat, complexity may trigger policy paralysis. As an enabler, if complexity is harvested, it can enrich the IG space with diverse ideas and initiatives. If harnessed, it can help actors to address their IG priorities without losing sight of the broader policy picture. Efforts to deal with complexity should not lead to oversimplification; flexible forms of cooperation should be encouraged. *More info..* *4. Developing innovative legal approaches to the Internet * Legal rules and jurisdiction on the Internet evolve through reinterpretation, adaptation, and expansion of existing laws. In some cases, the creation of new legal mechanisms for online space (e.g. the right to be forgotten, e-signatures) is required. Innovative solutions should be informed by the cumulative wisdom of the legal profession. *More info..* *5. Strengthening genuine participation in IG processes* Full inclusion and genuine participation in IG processes increases the quality and also the acceptance of the policies adopted, building on the diversity of views represented. Strengthening inclusive multistakeholder participation requires a sense of community around which online participation can be implemented. E-participation requires good planning and considerable social engagement. An effective interplay between in situ and e-participation can be achieved through changes in the organisation of meetings, adjustment of procedures, and training. *More info..* *6. Ensuring holistic capacity development* Capacity development for IG should be holistic, going beyond simply training individuals. To be sustainable, capacity development should support the emergence of functional and robust institutions which are essential for facilitating innovation, rule of law, and protecting human rights on the Internet. Capacity development requires a smart mix of training, coaching, and the introduction of policy mechanisms adjusted to specific local and national contexts. *More info..* *7. Aiming for full transparency, accepting occasional translucency* Transparency is a necessary condition for trust, and for the accountability that all IG processes need to adhere to and, where possible, institutionalise. Occasional translucency – being transparent about what we cannot be transparent about – can be accepted when the risks posed by disclosing information are greater than the overall benefits, in particular if they affect those in a vulnerable position. *More info..* *8. Using subsidiarity effectively * While the Internet is a global network, policy implications are often local and national. As the Internet as a network of networks allows for a diversity of local technical solutions that are interoperable, this approach should also be used more at policy level. While adhering to globally shared basic principles, there should be room for diversity of policies responding to different local and regional needs and priorities. Using the principle of subsidiarity to address IG issues at the appropriate level will make IG more effective. It will improve trust in, and ownership and acceptance of, Internet-related policies. When it is not possible to solve a problem locally, ‘policy elevators’ should bring the issue to the optimal level. *More info..* *9. Drafting IG policies in open consultation * Inclusive and participatory multistakeholder policy drafting should start with open consultations. Procedures should facilitate the involvement of diverse actors in collaborative drafting, reflecting a multitude of approaches (diplomatic, technical, civil society, business, etc.). Transparency, with checks and balances, can maximise the potential for broad consensus and minimise the risk of a few actors hijacking the process. *More info..* *10. Prioritising evidence and data collection* Evidence and data should contribute to more solid and sustainable IG. Evidence-based IG typically starts with identifying a full range of possibly diverse needs and aims on all levels. It collects relevant data using appropriate tools and methods, measures and assesses impact, and presents findings in an understandable way for policymakers. Priority areas for evidence-based approaches are cybercrime, and monitoring the level of digital divide. *More info..* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 04:32:21 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 04:32:21 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU Plenipot] Recap Oct 29 - Nov 3 In-Reply-To: <410A4A8C-DDA9-4B61-ADC5-00A75E7F3507@consensus.pro> References: <410A4A8C-DDA9-4B61-ADC5-00A75E7F3507@consensus.pro> Message-ID: yeah...amazing harder than the 130 on cybersecurity I feel... The worst so far as been the one of gender (!!!!!) and openness. The bus is booked to leave PP-14 at 1am today... On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > This was an extremely difficult resolution to get to consensus on, and was > for some time in danger of resulting in voting in Plenary on multiple > resolutions. > > On 3 Nov 2014, at 15:59, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > Note that regarding Res 64 the background (not spoken) issue is exports > control. For an overview see this article: > http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Translating_Norms_to_the_Digital_Age_Final.pdf > > > C > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> This is to give an update of the ongoing discussions at the ITU PP14. >> >> Civil society in Busan have participated in many debates outlined below, >> through their national delegations or informal discussions with other >> delegates. It would be great if colleagues following particular discussions >> could expand or reflect on the summary presented below. On a general note, >> with 4 days to go, most people seem to think that compromises have been >> reached sooner than expected. >> >> A number of us participated in the second meeting with the outgoing ITU >> Secretary General, which was largely seen as an ITU PR-stunt. In order to >> ensure continuity, an informal meeting of CS reps with the Secretary >> General elect, Mr. Zhao, is expected to take place in the next few days. If >> you have suggestions for what issues should be raised at that meeting, >> share them here. >> >> Hope this is useful. >> >> Best, >> Lea >> >> --- >> >> *Process* >> At the beginning of Week 3 of the Plenipot, most ad hoc working groups >> (AHGs) dealing with specific proposals are wrapping up. Many AHGs have >> already agreed text, which has been sent to Committee 5 (COM5), Committee 6 >> (COM6), and the Plenary Working Group (WGPL). Once agreed in an ad hoc, the >> text rarely gets re-opened for discussion in the Committees or WGPL, and >> even more rarely in the Plenary. >> >> Discussions >> What follows is an overview of main discussions divided by relevant AHGs. >> The list is not exhaustive. For a visual representation of various AHGs >> pertaining to the WGPL, see this useful chart >> created by Samantha >> Dickinson (who has also been >> diligently live-tweeting the meeting). >> >> COM5 AHG on draft new resolution on counterfeit devices >> Status: Ad hoc closed, text >> >> sent to COM5 which will consider it on Monday afternoon. >> Highlights: >> >> - All references to ‘unauthorised devices’ have been dropped so the >> resolution is now only about counterfeit devices. >> - References to a device database in which all telecommunications/ICT >> would need to be registered, are removed from the document; >> - Problematic language on combating counterfeit is now balanced by >> reference to taking into consideration ‘importance of maintaining user >> connectivity’ (which is very similar to the BB recommendation). This means >> that in combating counterfeit equipment, countries should not simply >> disconnect all counterfeit devices without considering how this affects >> user connectivity, which is great win for end-users. >> - We did not manage to get references to IMEI and other unique >> identifiers completely out of the text, but it doesn't seem that this will >> do much harm or increase mandate of ITU, since this is mostly regulated via >> national legislation and regulation and the provision on the consideration >> of end-user connectivity. ITU-T also already has a strong standard on this >> (namely X.1255 which can be found here: >> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1255-201309-I >> >> >> AHGs on ITU openness and transparency (Decisions 11 & 12, New Decision on >> Access to ITU documents) >> Status: Ad hoc on access to documents closed, text >> >> agreed by COM5; Ad hoc on Decision 11 >> >> (opening up CWGs) ongoing, next to meet on Monday afternoon. >> Highlights: >> COM5 AHG on access to documents (New decision): >> >> - Member States agreed on the broad principle that the ITU needs to >> be more transparent and that more of its documents should be open to the >> public. >> - They disagreed on how this should be done in practice (what the >> official policy would look like), who should take the decision, and the >> appropriate timeframe. >> - The agreed text decides to open all input and output documents of >> ITU conference and assemblies starting in 2015. It then instructs one of >> the Council Working Groups to draft a policy to present to the Council for >> consideration. The Council can then, on an interim basis, decide to >> implement the policy, as appropriate. The final decision on policy to be >> taken at PP 2018. >> >> >> WGPL AHG on Council Working Groups (CWGs) & CWG Internet (Decision 11): >> >> - [Currently, all CWGs are open to all ITU Member States; some are >> open to Sector Members; none are open to observers. CWG-Internet is only >> open to Member States. Best Bits submitted a request to open this CWG in >> 2013, which was denied by Council.] >> - Proposals from Europe and US ask for all CWGs to be open to all >> Member States and Sector members, and for CWG-Internet to be open to all >> stakeholders. There is no agreement on this and discussions are ongoing. >> >> >> WGPL AHG on Resolution 130 (Strengthening the role of ITU in building >> confidence and security in the use of ICTs) >> Status: Ad hoc closed, text >> to >> be presented for WGPL consideration on Monday afternoon. >> Highlights: >> >> - The agreed text does not diverge greatly from the original >> Resolution 130 – an outcome that is most aligned with proposals from those >> who advocated a ‘no-change’ approach to this Resolution (US, Europe); >> - Proposals to include references to privacy and human rights have >> been resisted; >> - Proposals for the ITU to come up with a roadmap for dealing with >> cybersecurity have equally been resisted, >> >> >> WGPL AGH on Internet-related resolutions (Res 101, Res 102, Res 133, Res >> 180, and new proposals) >> Status: Ad hoc closed. Texts to be considered by WGPL on Monday >> afternoon. Status of texts as of Nov 2 is available here >> >> (updated text from Nov 3 not yet online). >> Highlights: >> >> - Compromise text was reached on all Internet-related resolutions, >> with minor revisions, some slight improvements, and a limited concession on >> the side of the US/Europe to acknowledge more explicitly the role of the >> ITU in Internet-related issues (particularly in Res 102); >> - It was also agreed that the ITU should take a more conservative >> approach to opening up the CWG Internet. On that point, it was agreed that >> CWG Internet will hold open consultations on various agenda items prior to >> CWG meetings, but otherwise the doors of the CWG will stay closed to >> non-Member States; >> - The 4 newly proposed resolutions have been withdrawn, including the >> controversial Indian proposal (IND/98), which will nevertheless get a >> mention in the Chairman's report, >> >> >> WGPL AHG on Res 174 (ITU's role with regard to international public >> policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of ICTs) >> Status: Ad hoc closed, text >> >> agreed by WGPL >> Highlights: >> >> - Outcome document has been boiled down to awareness raising and >> sticking to the ITU’s existing mandate in combatting illicit use of ICTs; >> - All references to ‘global charter’ related to security of ICTs have >> been dropped, >> >> >> WGPL AHG on WSIS related resolutions (Res 140, Res 172) >> Status: Ad hoc on WSIS reached agreement on Res 140 text >> , >> which was subsequently considered and approved by WGPL. Res 172 has been >> supressed. >> Highlights: >> >> - The group decided to supress Resolution 172 (reasons: text seen as >> out-dated and otherwise covered in Res 140), which was subsequently >> approved by WGPL. >> - The agreed text of Res 140 resolves that ITU continues its >> facilitating role in the WSIS process, subject to UNGA 2015 WSIS Review, >> and continues being the lead facilitator in relevant WSIS Action Lines as >> specified in the Tunis Agenda (C2, C5, C6). The resolution encourages the >> UNGA overall review to take into account ITU’s review of the WSIS, >> including the outcome doc of WSIS+10 High Level Event. >> >> >> WGPL AHG on Res 64 (Non-discriminatory access) >> Status: Ad hoc closed, proposed text to be considered by WGPL on Monday >> afternoon >> Highlights: >> >> - It is also worth noting the discussion on Resolution 64 >> , >> which has spurred a stand off between Cuba and others in relation to >> non-discriminatory access to ICTs. For context, similar discussions have, >> arguably, led to the break-down of WCIT. It now seems that a compromise >> text has been found and should be presented to WGPL on Monday afternoon. >> >> >> ---- >> >> *Lea Kaspar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >> >> gp-digital.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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 28 16:09:39 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 22:09:39 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <21624.56554.782297.81958@world.std.com> Message-ID: <20141128220939.5a22cf63@quill> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:36:58 -0500 Barry Shein wrote: > I was looking around for what I could find out about CSCG, > specifically the list of member or supporting organizations. Just for > my own edification. I believe CSCG is the Civil Society Coordination > Group. > > Nothing led me to a simple home page or similar for the one I was > looking for. Just guessing 'cscg.org' timed out. This isn't well-publicized yet, but you can find some official info at http://internetgov-cs.org/ Greetings, Norbert From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Nov 30 13:18:16 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:18:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> Message-ID: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one saw "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other time except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for president and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil has 142 million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 thousand people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of Brazilian people. Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Carlos > > Yoiu wote : > > < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took > the reigns > of the government of Brazil. > > You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados > and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and > Dilma's "softened" policy. > > BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of > treatment" ... > > Best regards > > Jean-louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 > > De : "Carlos Afonso" > > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , > "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > "parminder at itforchange.net" > > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , > "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br > > > > Dear people, > > > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as > president. As > > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with > massive > > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco > the > > thousands of people cheering Lula. > > > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a > sort of > > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, > NGOs > > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among > them) -- > > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and > there is > > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the > reigns > > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be > the other > > way around. > > > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > (*) See, for example, this report: > > > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> > > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br > has now come > > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and > ICANN (basically > > >> doing US's bidding) game. > > > > > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > > > > > > > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave > the world > > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the > basic lessons > > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain > economic and > > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, > especially at the > > >> global level! > > >> > > > > > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > > > > > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that > excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic > backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but > merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain > far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this > subject. > > > > > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the > Brazilian > > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a > great loss, > > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive > community > > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be > taken for > > > > > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global > progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you > continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently > doesn't share. > > > > > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out > > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global > governance > > >> initiative.* > > >> > > > > > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of > extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us > all from such support. > > > > > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work > together > > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil > society offer > > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the > interests > > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future > generations. Let > > > > > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of > inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. > You don't and have never represented it all. > > > > > > --srs > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Nov 30 13:43:45 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 10:43:45 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <02af01d00ccd$9293c090$b7bb41b0$@gmail.com> Perhaps this is what Jean-Louis is pointing to... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_protests_in_Brazil An estimated 250,000 protesters took to the streets of various cities on June 17. The largest protests were organized in Rio de Janeiro, where 100,000 attended from mid-afternoon of June 17 to late dawn of June 18. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 10:18 AM To: Jean-Louis FULLSACK; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; SureshRamasubramanian; parminderitforchange.net Cc: HartmutRichardGlaser; bestbitslists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one saw "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other time except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for president and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil has 142 million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 thousand people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of Brazilian people. Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Carlos > > Yoiu wote : > > < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF > took the reigns of the government of Brazil. > > You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados > and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and > Dilma's "softened" policy. > > BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of > treatment" ... > > Best regards > > Jean-louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 > > De : "Carlos Afonso" < ca at cafonso.ca> > > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" < suresh at hserus.net>, > " governance at lists.igcaucus.org" < governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, > " parminder at itforchange.net" < parminder at itforchange.net> > > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" < glaser at cgi.br>, > " bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br > > > > Dear people, > > > > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as > president. As > > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with > massive > > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco > the > > thousands of people cheering Lula. > > > > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of > > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of > > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a > sort of > > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, > NGOs > > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among > them) -- > > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and > there is > > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the > reigns > > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be > the other > > way around. > > > > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of > > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different > > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > (*) See, for example, this report: > > > http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation > > > > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > >> > > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br > has now come > > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and > ICANN (basically > > >> doing US's bidding) game. > > > > > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. > > > > > > > > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave > the world > > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the > basic lessons > > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain > economic and > > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, > especially at the > > >> global level! > > >> > > > > > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. > > > > > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that > excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic > backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but > merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain > far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this > subject. > > > > > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the > Brazilian > > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a > great loss, > > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive > community > > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be > taken for > > > > > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global > progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you > continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently > doesn't share. > > > > > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out > > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global > governance > > >> initiative.* > > >> > > > > > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of > extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us > all from such support. > > > > > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work > together > > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil > society offer > > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the > interests > > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future > generations. Let > > > > > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of > inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. > You don't and have never represented it all. > > > > > > --srs > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: From joao.caribe at me.com Sun Nov 30 14:04:07 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 17:04:07 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] From Confusion to Clarification In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <793FFF2DB19A4177851ACCDC06269034@Toshiba> <54762985.2010101@apc.org> <053001d009ba$768cf260$63a6d720$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016428EE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Appear to be a very interesting idea, first time come to my mind this project could expose strategically the civil society stakeholder, giving out concerns, positions and other valuable assets that can be used against us in our strives, shortly thereafter I realized that who can use it knows us better than us. I approve, also can support in any task. Congratulations for this savvy idea Wolf Joao Caribe Em 28/11/2014, às 05:21, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > Hi everybody > > After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly) disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia etc. > This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the position. So it is about transparency and clarity. > > Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks. > > I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main chapters: > > 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.) > 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.) > 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure development etc.) > 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.) > > Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC) could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical, moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues. > > Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us. > > We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.) until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+ process. > > The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups) would be the editor. > > Any comment? > > Wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 From Guru at ITforChange.net Sun Nov 30 22:56:25 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 09:26:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br In-Reply-To: <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> References: <382183192.11809.1417369632547.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h22> <547B5F68.4090506@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <547BE6E9.4060206@ITforChange.net> Grande CA, You can be sure that not only will Jean-Louis "look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe since the 2008 crisis", he will be unhappy with it. But of course that does not mean he, or many of us need not be concerned with Brazil's role in the NMI. The reason why many of us are concerned about Brazil participation in a space (WEF) that 'belongs' to the business elite of the world, is simply that many of us consider Brazil a global leader in supporting policies programmes for social justice, human rights, democracy. As Parminder mentioned in an earlier post, the WSF, which took birth in Brazil sees itself (inter alia) as the antidote to the "disastrous neoliberal policies" that WEF is associated with/promotes. Since you are also concerned about the dangers of neo-liberalism, the following excerpt may be useful read: The *World Social Forum* (WSF, Portuguese : /Fórum Social Mundial/ [ˈfɔɾũ soˈsjaw mũdʒiˈaw] ) is an annual meeting of civil society organizations, first held in Brazil , which offers a self-conscious effort to develop an alternative future through the championing of counter-hegemonic globalization . Some^// consider the World Social Forum to be a physical manifestation of global civil society , as it brings together non governmental organizations , advocacy campaigns as well as formal and informal social movements seeking international solidarity . The World Social Forum prefers to define itself as "an opened space – plural, diverse, non-governmental and non-partisan – that stimulates the decentralized debate, reflection, proposals building, experiences exchange and alliances among movements and organizations engaged in concrete actions towards a more solidarity, democratic and fair world....a permanent space and process to build alternatives to neoliberalism ."^[1] ...It tends to meet in January at the same time as its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos , Switzerland . This date is consciously picked to promote their alternative answers to world economic problems in opposition to the World Economic Forum . Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Social_Forum Hope Brazil will really rethink its participation in the NMI. warm fraternal regards Guru On Sunday 30 November 2014 11:48 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Hi Jean, I am a Brazilian, from São Paulo and living in Rio. No one > saw "hundreds of thousands" in the streets in June 2013 or any other > time except in the 80's with the campaign for direct elections for > president and the 90' with the movement for ethics in politics. Brazil > has 142 million voters. It takes a lot more than a few hundreds of 1-2 > thousand people in Paulista Avenue to be representative of the will of > Brazilian people. > > Nice to be sitting comfortably somewhere in Europe and doing this kind > of shallow evaluation of our political process. You should better take > a look at the disastrous neoliberal policies being practiced in Europe > since the 2008 crisis. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/30/14 18:47, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> Dear Carlos >> >> Yoiu wote : >> >> < there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took >> the reigns >> of the government of Brazil. >> >> You are right : there were hundreds of thousand Brasilians -Indignados >> and others- in the streets and places to protest about Lula's and >> Dilma's "softened" policy. >> >> BTW, Davos is hosting annually a "policicy softening course of >> treatment" ... >> >> Best regards >> >> Jean-louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 23/11/14 00:47 >> > De : "Carlos Afonso" >> > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , >> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> "parminder at itforchange.net" >> > Copie à : "Hartmut Richard Glaser" , >> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br >> > >> > Dear people, >> > >> > In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as >> president. As >> > usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with >> massive >> > acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in loco >> the >> > thousands of people cheering Lula. >> > >> > From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of >> > corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social >> movements of >> > course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a >> sort of >> > scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants, >> NGOs >> > and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among >> them) -- >> > our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and >> there is >> > no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took the >> reigns >> > of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would be >> the other >> > way around. >> > >> > I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of >> > arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different >> > (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other. >> > >> > fraternal regards >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > (*) See, for example, this report: >> > >> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation >> > >> > On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br >> has now come >> > >> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and >> ICANN (basically >> > >> doing US's bidding) game. >> > > >> > > Disappointed? My heart bleeds for you, to be sure. >> > > >> > > >> > >> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave >> the world >> > >> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the >> basic lessons >> > >> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain >> economic and >> > >> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, >> especially at the >> > >> global level! >> > >> >> > > >> > > Now you call them naïve. How incredibly patronizing. >> > > >> > > Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that >> excludes stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic >> backgrounds that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but >> merely pure demagoguery. Makes me glad that you continue to remain >> far, far away from the civil society mainstream thinking on this >> subject. >> > > >> > >> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the >> Brazilian >> > >> government and CGI.Br has, something that I find to be such a >> great loss, >> > >> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive >> community >> > >> has consistently supported you, but this support cannot be >> taken for >> > > >> > > I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global >> progressive community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you >> continue to push, and that the majority of the community apparently >> doesn't share. >> > > >> > >> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you >> come out >> > >> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global >> governance >> > >> initiative.* >> > >> >> > > >> > > Your support, and those of the small splinter group of >> extremists that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us >> all from such support. >> > > >> > >> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work >> together >> > >> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil >> society offer >> > >> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the >> interests >> > >> and fate of the people of the world, and of the future >> generations. Let >> > > >> > > That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of >> inclusiveness. Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large. >> You don't and have never represented it all. >> > > >> > > --srs >> > > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 04:50:43 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:50:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU Plenipot] Recap Oct 29 - Nov 3 In-Reply-To: References: <410A4A8C-DDA9-4B61-ADC5-00A75E7F3507@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <3DEFF297-DA4F-4365-8B6E-A4130F4DF81E@gmail.com> Hi Thanks for the reportage Lea et al. It’s a bit frustrating to those of us not in Busan that the Internet and other discussions of particular interest have been taking place in ad hoc working groups for which there’s no webcast or captioning archives (including, of course, the AHGs on ITU openness and transparency). If ever anyone there has a bit of time (perhaps at night back in the hotel with a glass in hand) for a little more mapping of how these discussions evolved, that’d be much appreciated. >>> It was also agreed that the ITU should take a more conservative approach to opening up the CWG Internet. On that point, it was agreed that CWG Internet will hold open consultations on various agenda items prior to CWG meetings, but otherwise the doors of the CWG will stay closed to non-Member States; This is pathetic and organizationally self-defeating. >>> The 4 newly proposed resolutions have been withdrawn, including the controversial Indian proposal (IND/98), which will nevertheless get a mention in the Chairman's report, I would love to have been a fly on the wall for this one…I would be particularly interested to know how other G77 governments & Russia viewed the proposal... Bill > On Nov 3, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > yeah...amazing harder than the 130 on cybersecurity I feel... > The worst so far as been the one of gender (!!!!!) and openness. The bus is booked to leave PP-14 at 1am today... > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: > This was an extremely difficult resolution to get to consensus on, and was for some time in danger of resulting in voting in Plenary on multiple resolutions. > > On 3 Nov 2014, at 15:59, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > >> Note that regarding Res 64 the background (not spoken) issue is exports control. For an overview see this article: http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Translating_Norms_to_the_Digital_Age_Final.pdf >> >> C >> >> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> This is to give an update of the ongoing discussions at the ITU PP14. >> >> Civil society in Busan have participated in many debates outlined below, through their national delegations or informal discussions with other delegates. It would be great if colleagues following particular discussions could expand or reflect on the summary presented below. On a general note, with 4 days to go, most people seem to think that compromises have been reached sooner than expected. >> >> A number of us participated in the second meeting with the outgoing ITU Secretary General, which was largely seen as an ITU PR-stunt. In order to ensure continuity, an informal meeting of CS reps with the Secretary General elect, Mr. Zhao, is expected to take place in the next few days. If you have suggestions for what issues should be raised at that meeting, share them here. >> >> Hope this is useful. >> >> Best, >> Lea >> >> --- >> >> Process >> At the beginning of Week 3 of the Plenipot, most ad hoc working groups (AHGs) dealing with specific proposals are wrapping up. Many AHGs have already agreed text, which has been sent to Committee 5 (COM5), Committee 6 (COM6), and the Plenary Working Group (WGPL). Once agreed in an ad hoc, the text rarely gets re-opened for discussion in the Committees or WGPL, and even more rarely in the Plenary. >> >> Discussions >> What follows is an overview of main discussions divided by relevant AHGs. The list is not exhaustive. For a visual representation of various AHGs pertaining to the WGPL, see this useful chart created by Samantha Dickinson (who has also been diligently live-tweeting the meeting). >> >> COM5 AHG on draft new resolution on counterfeit devices >> Status: Ad hoc closed, text sent to COM5 which will consider it on Monday afternoon. >> Highlights: >> All references to ‘unauthorised devices’ have been dropped so the resolution is now only about counterfeit devices. >> References to a device database in which all telecommunications/ICT would need to be registered, are removed from the document; >> Problematic language on combating counterfeit is now balanced by reference to taking into consideration ‘importance of maintaining user connectivity’ (which is very similar to the BB recommendation). This means that in combating counterfeit equipment, countries should not simply disconnect all counterfeit devices without considering how this affects user connectivity, which is great win for end-users. >> We did not manage to get references to IMEI and other unique identifiers completely out of the text, but it doesn't seem that this will do much harm or increase mandate of ITU, since this is mostly regulated via national legislation and regulation and the provision on the consideration of end-user connectivity. ITU-T also already has a strong standard on this (namely X.1255 which can be found here: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1255-201309-I >> >> AHGs on ITU openness and transparency (Decisions 11 & 12, New Decision on Access to ITU documents) >> Status: Ad hoc on access to documents closed, text agreed by COM5; Ad hoc on Decision 11 (opening up CWGs) ongoing, next to meet on Monday afternoon. >> Highlights: >> COM5 AHG on access to documents (New decision): >> Member States agreed on the broad principle that the ITU needs to be more transparent and that more of its documents should be open to the public. >> They disagreed on how this should be done in practice (what the official policy would look like), who should take the decision, and the appropriate timeframe. >> The agreed text decides to open all input and output documents of ITU conference and assemblies starting in 2015. It then instructs one of the Council Working Groups to draft a policy to present to the Council for consideration. The Council can then, on an interim basis, decide to implement the policy, as appropriate. The final decision on policy to be taken at PP 2018. >> >> WGPL AHG on Council Working Groups (CWGs) & CWG Internet (Decision 11): >> [Currently, all CWGs are open to all ITU Member States; some are open to Sector Members; none are open to observers. CWG-Internet is only open to Member States. Best Bits submitted a request to open this CWG in 2013, which was denied by Council.] >> Proposals from Europe and US ask for all CWGs to be open to all Member States and Sector members, and for CWG-Internet to be open to all stakeholders. There is no agreement on this and discussions are ongoing. >> >> WGPL AHG on Resolution 130 (Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) >> Status: Ad hoc closed, text to be presented for WGPL consideration on Monday afternoon. >> Highlights: >> The agreed text does not diverge greatly from the original Resolution 130 – an outcome that is most aligned with proposals from those who advocated a ‘no-change’ approach to this Resolution (US, Europe); >> Proposals to include references to privacy and human rights have been resisted; >> Proposals for the ITU to come up with a roadmap for dealing with cybersecurity have equally been resisted, >> >> WGPL AGH on Internet-related resolutions (Res 101, Res 102, Res 133, Res 180, and new proposals) >> Status: Ad hoc closed. Texts to be considered by WGPL on Monday afternoon. Status of texts as of Nov 2 is available here (updated text from Nov 3 not yet online). >> Highlights: >> Compromise text was reached on all Internet-related resolutions, with minor revisions, some slight improvements, and a limited concession on the side of the US/Europe to acknowledge more explicitly the role of the ITU in Internet-related issues (particularly in Res 102); >> It was also agreed that the ITU should take a more conservative approach to opening up the CWG Internet. On that point, it was agreed that CWG Internet will hold open consultations on various agenda items prior to CWG meetings, but otherwise the doors of the CWG will stay closed to non-Member States; >> The 4 newly proposed resolutions have been withdrawn, including the controversial Indian proposal (IND/98), which will nevertheless get a mention in the Chairman's report, >> >> WGPL AHG on Res 174 (ITU's role with regard to international public policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of ICTs) >> Status: Ad hoc closed, text agreed by WGPL >> Highlights: >> Outcome document has been boiled down to awareness raising and sticking to the ITU’s existing mandate in combatting illicit use of ICTs; >> All references to ‘global charter’ related to security of ICTs have been dropped, >> >> WGPL AHG on WSIS related resolutions (Res 140, Res 172) >> Status: Ad hoc on WSIS reached agreement on Res 140 text , which was subsequently considered and approved by WGPL. Res 172 has been supressed. >> Highlights: >> The group decided to supress Resolution 172 (reasons: text seen as out-dated and otherwise covered in Res 140), which was subsequently approved by WGPL. >> The agreed text of Res 140 resolves that ITU continues its facilitating role in the WSIS process, subject to UNGA 2015 WSIS Review, and continues being the lead facilitator in relevant WSIS Action Lines as specified in the Tunis Agenda (C2, C5, C6). The resolution encourages the UNGA overall review to take into account ITU’s review of the WSIS, including the outcome doc of WSIS+10 High Level Event. >> >> WGPL AHG on Res 64 (Non-discriminatory access) >> Status: Ad hoc closed, proposed text to be considered by WGPL on Monday afternoon >> Highlights: >> It is also worth noting the discussion on Resolution 64 , which has spurred a stand off between Cuba and others in relation to non-discriminatory access to ICTs. For context, similar discussions have, arguably, led to the break-down of WCIT. It now seems that a compromise text has been found and should be presented to WGPL on Monday afternoon. >> >> ---- >> >> Lea Kaspar >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033 <>7 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >> gp-digital.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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 05:23:51 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:23:51 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC References: Message-ID: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > From: NETmundial Secretariat > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > The Initiative’s way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br ), the World Economic Forum (WEF ), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62 ) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > o Click on “Enter as Guest” > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org . > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > > 0 800 100 8542 > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative *********************************************** 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 *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Webinar Invitation on the Launch of the NETmundial Initiative.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 99306 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:02:36 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:02:36 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <14942a48a80.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <326787D7-ECE4-435F-AEE7-7FFFC434FDF9@difference.com.au> On 24 Oct 2014, at 11:08 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > Of course these models of governance are aspirations—goals, directions towards which we strive, but which equally have the effect of strongly conditioning our current decisions and directions—which is why this discussion is not theoretical but extremely practical. Well, I for one find that JNC positions, which are effectively critical of all current models to some extent, where more directed to practical positive outcomes. > Is the direction towards which we strive in the area of global (Internet) governance one that maximizes democracy (rule by and for the people) or one that maximizes multi-stakeholderism (rule by and for the elite who have “stakes”)? Simple question. Disingenous question, as you are sbsolutely aware that many on this list would regard your characterisation of multi-stakeholderism as wildly misleading. And, for that matter, many would regard JNC positions as frequently, while rhetorically applauding democracy, as in practical terms leading in the opposite direction. > Siva went on to suggest that MSism is the next stage beyond democracy an even stronger position In some respects, it may be, considering what you regard it as evolving from. If you regard democracy as being strict majoritarianism in all things then MSism surely stands in opposition to that, but that is an incredibly naive position on democracy held by practically no one. > – that is that rule by and for the people has now somehow become obsolete in the face of the overwhelming ascendance of certain private corporations, certain elite groups, certain countries and their allies. The view of multi-stakeholder processes you have is one that I feel can only be maintained by dedicated non-engagement. > Civil Society of course has traditionally (classically) supported democracy and the broadest base of participation in the structures and operations of governance. Indeed. And it should continue to do so. This is not, however, necessarily in opposition to multi-stakeholderism, especially in transnational fora in which democratic mechanisms do not practically exist. > But in the absence of a denial of these propositions rejecting Democracy presented by Siva and others it would appear that that too has become obsolete. Siva simply said he didn't feel that discussing this particular issue at this point in time, which would require first a thorough debunking of your constant urge to mis-characterise both multi-stakeholderism and democracy, is not a high priority. Your efforts to construe a desire not to engage as meaning what you want it to mean are an empty rhetorical position that proves nothing. Please stop. Regards David > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:52 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Gene Kimmelman'; michael gurstein > Cc: 'Sivasubramanian M'; forum at justnetcoalition.org; 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP' > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Why isn't a multi stakeholder process any less broad or inclusive than say a multi lateral government only model, or a Parliamentary model in which a few elected representatives (whom you may not even have voted for), or a bureaucrat employed by the government elected by a country, determines policy that affects you? > > True participatory democracy, going by the letter of that wiki definition, appears to be found in the cantons of Switzerland I guess, or on a smaller scale, in a local club where every member has a voice and a stake on where to hold their annual event, for example. > > On 24 October 2014 10:33:45 am "michael gurstein" wrote: > > No, I don’t think so, Gene. > > Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite central importance going forward. > > I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by their silence indicate consent. > > M > > From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP > Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to discuss in person at some future meeting. > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. > > M > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM > To: 'Sivasubramanian M' > Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… > > Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism? > > M > > From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > Dear Michael Gurstein, > > The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > 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 of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos andkratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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: From geetha at cis-india.org Sat Nov 1 01:21:37 2014 From: geetha at cis-india.org (Geetha Hariharan) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:21:37 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] On India's proposal and Internet governance Message-ID: <54546DE1.4010803@cis-india.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hello! Some analysis on India's proposal and implications for Internet governance. http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-recalcitrant-text-2013-ii-what-india2019s-itu-proposal-may-mean-for-internet-governance. Would appreciate feedback and comments! Best, Geetha. - -- Geetha Hariharan Programme Officer Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 8860 360717 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUVG3hAAoJENMCY59StgV57LoH/3ldDkiF3XCuByLe4RIFy02H DjN1r3ppG6GqndVgg6QdBSQrzLRqI8tv02ykwH918PSaiLB2C7ds+alf1KWYTEWB W7UAQP8gKQrn+zFVk+vcfnkItHVnFXv1Eo8yW+zd6uFC6+y9SfFQmUAADQEKa+Xz wkxTL+iPI3BgkrEvjCzNV2MG74RwbtY75l7KX5n/kT5rQsZR4lhTyaST3e3cbUka SCwnobzgIQE5kFxjRoNElkKrN1h9OsWXTNJgOV+Diryxh0cSYBcUk4Zy2niF6xmx 0SDifPL4tjtWIzINHsEEP2YOD7KCt8//j78++J1tO80aulxvJ0Cnq27pwC36XaI= =t2H/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mshears at cdt.org Mon Nov 3 09:23:10 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:23:10 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU Plenipot] Recap Oct 29 - Nov 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54578FCE.3060509@cdt.org> Thanks Lea - this is really helpful for those of us not on location. Matthew On 11/3/2014 12:38 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > This is to give an update of the ongoing discussions at the ITU PP14. > > Civil society in Busan have participated in many debates outlined > below, through their national delegations or informal discussions with > other delegates. It would be great if colleagues following particular > discussions could expand or reflect on the summary presented below. On > a general note, with 4 days to go, most people seem to think that > compromises have been reached sooner than expected. > > A number of us participated in the second meeting with the outgoing > ITU Secretary General, which was largely seen as an ITU PR-stunt. In > order to ensure continuity, an informal meeting of CS reps with the > Secretary General elect, Mr. Zhao, is expected to take place in the > next few days. If you have suggestions for what issues should be > raised at that meeting, share them here. > > Hope this is useful. > > Best, > Lea > > > --- > > > *_Process_* > At the beginning of Week 3 of the Plenipot, most ad hoc working groups > (AHGs) dealing with specific proposals are wrapping up. Many AHGs have > already agreed text, which has been sent to Committee 5 (COM5), > Committee 6 (COM6), and the Plenary Working Group (WGPL). Once agreed > in an ad hoc, the text rarely gets re-opened for discussion in the > Committees or WGPL, and even more rarely in the Plenary. > > > Discussions > > What follows is an overview of main discussions divided by relevant > AHGs. The list is not exhaustive. For a visual representation of > various AHGs pertaining to the WGPL, see this usefulchart > created > bySamantha Dickinson (who has also > been diligently live-tweeting the meeting). > > COM5 AHG on draft new resolution on counterfeit devices > > Status:Ad hoc closed,text > sent > to COM5 which will consider it on Monday afternoon. > > Highlights: > > * > > All references to ‘unauthorised devices’ have been dropped so the > resolution is now only about counterfeit devices. > > * > > References to a device database in which all > telecommunications/ICT would need to be registered, are removed > from the document; > > * > > Problematic language on combating counterfeit is now balanced by > reference to taking into consideration ‘importance of maintaining > user connectivity’ (which is very similar to the BB > recommendation). This means that in combating counterfeit > equipment, countries should not simply disconnect all counterfeit > devices without considering how this affects user connectivity, > which is great win for end-users. > > * > > We did not manage to get references to IMEI and other unique > identifiers completely out of the text, but it doesn't seem that > this will do much harm or increase mandate of ITU, since this is > mostly regulated via national legislation and regulation and the > provision on the consideration of end-user connectivity. ITU-T > also already has a strong standard on this (namely X.1255 which > can be found here:http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1255-201309-I > > AHGs on ITU openness and transparency (Decisions 11 & 12, New Decision > on Access to ITU documents) > > Status:Ad hoc on access to documents closed,text > agreed > by COM5; Ad hoc onDecision 11 > (opening > up CWGs) ongoing, next to meet on Monday afternoon. > > Highlights: > > COM5 AHG on access to documents (New decision): > > * > > Member States agreed on the broad principle that the ITU needs to > be more transparent and that more of its documents should be open > to the public. > > * > > They disagreed on how this should be done in practice (what the > official policy would look like), who should take the decision, > and the appropriate timeframe. > > * > > The agreed text decides to open all input and output documents of > ITU conference and assemblies starting in 2015. It then instructs > one of the Council Working Groups to draft a policy to present to > the Council for consideration. The Council can then, on an interim > basis, decide to implement the policy, as appropriate. The final > decision on policy to be taken at PP 2018. > > > WGPL AHG on Council Working Groups (CWGs) & CWG Internet (Decision 11): > > * > > [Currently, all CWGs are open to all ITU Member States; some are > open to Sector Members; none are open to observers. CWG-Internet > is only open to Member States. Best Bits submitted a request to > open this CWG in 2013, which was denied by Council.] > > * > > Proposals from Europe and US ask for all CWGs to be open to all > Member States and Sector members, and for CWG-Internet to be open > to all stakeholders. There is no agreement on this and discussions > are ongoing. > > > WGPL AHG on Resolution 130(Strengthening the role of ITU in building > confidence and security in the use of ICTs) > > Status:Ad hoc closed,text > to > be presented for WGPL consideration on Monday afternoon. > > Highlights: > > * > > The agreed text does not diverge greatly from the original > Resolution 130 – an outcome that is most aligned with proposals > from those who advocated a ‘no-change’ approach to this Resolution > (US, Europe); > > * > > Proposals to include references to privacy and human rights have > been resisted; > > * > > Proposals for the ITU to come up with a roadmap for dealing with > cybersecurity have equally been resisted, > > > WGPL AGH on Internet-related resolutions(Res 101, Res 102, Res 133, > Res 180, and new proposals) > > Status:Ad hoc closed. Texts to be considered by WGPL on Monday > afternoon. Status of texts as of Nov 2 is availablehere > (updated > text from Nov 3 not yet online). > > Highlights: > > * > > Compromise text was reached on all Internet-related resolutions, > with minor revisions, some slight improvements, and a limited > concession on the side of the US/Europe to acknowledge more > explicitly the role of the ITU in Internet-related issues > (particularly in Res 102); > > * > > It was also agreed that the ITU should take a more conservative > approach to opening up the CWG Internet. On that point, it was > agreed that CWG Internet will hold open consultations on various > agenda items prior to CWG meetings, but otherwise the doors of the > CWG will stay closed to non-Member States; > > * > > The 4 newly proposed resolutions have been withdrawn, including > the controversial Indian proposal (IND/98), which will > nevertheless get a mention in the Chairman's report, > > > WGPL AHG on Res 174 (ITU's role with regard to international public > policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of ICTs) > > Status:Ad hoc closed,text > agreed > by WGPL > > Highlights: > > * > > Outcome document has been boiled down to awareness raising and > sticking to the ITU’s existing mandate in combatting illicit use > of ICTs; > > * > > All references to ‘global charter’ related to security of ICTs > have been dropped, > > > WGPL AHG on WSIS related resolutions (Res 140, Res 172) > > Status:Ad hoc on WSIS reached agreement onRes 140 text > , > which was subsequently considered and approved by WGPL. Res 172 has > been supressed. > > Highlights: > > * > > The group decided to supress Resolution 172 (reasons: text seen as > out-dated and otherwise covered in Res 140), which was > subsequently approved by WGPL. > > * > > The agreed text of Res 140 resolves that ITU continues its > facilitating role in the WSIS process, subject to UNGA 2015 WSIS > Review, and continues being the lead facilitator in relevant WSIS > Action Lines as specified in the Tunis Agenda (C2, C5, C6). The > resolution encourages the UNGA overall review to take into account > ITU’s review of the WSIS, including the outcome doc of WSIS+10 > High Level Event. > > > WGPL AHG on Res 64 (Non-discriminatory access) > Status:Ad hoc closed, proposed text to be considered by WGPL on Monday > afternoon > Highlights: > > * > > It is also worth noting the discussion onResolution 64 > , > which has spurred a stand off between Cuba and others in relation > to non-discriminatory access to ICTs. For context, similar > discussions have, arguably, led to the break-down of WCIT. It now > seems that a compromise text has been found and should be > presented to WGPL on Monday afternoon. > > > ---- > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_| M: +44 (0)7583 929216| Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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 -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 10:35:30 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:35:30 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU Plenipot] Recap Oct 29 - Nov 3 In-Reply-To: <54578FCE.3060509@cdt.org> References: <54578FCE.3060509@cdt.org> Message-ID: Thanks Lea. I cant seem to find the Working Group of Plenary 7th Session of 30th on the archives of the captioning. It was the 14:30 session. I am specifically interested in in the Smart Africa vote. Need to find the resolution Thanks Nnenna On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Matthew Shears wrote: > Thanks Lea - this is really helpful for those of us not on location. > > Matthew > > > On 11/3/2014 12:38 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > > Dear all, > > This is to give an update of the ongoing discussions at the ITU PP14. > > Civil society in Busan have participated in many debates outlined below, > through their national delegations or informal discussions with other > delegates. It would be great if colleagues following particular discussions > could expand or reflect on the summary presented below. On a general note, > with 4 days to go, most people seem to think that compromises have been > reached sooner than expected. > > A number of us participated in the second meeting with the outgoing ITU > Secretary General, which was largely seen as an ITU PR-stunt. In order to > ensure continuity, an informal meeting of CS reps with the Secretary > General elect, Mr. Zhao, is expected to take place in the next few days. If > you have suggestions for what issues should be raised at that meeting, > share them here. > > Hope this is useful. > > Best, > Lea > > > --- > > *Process* > At the beginning of Week 3 of the Plenipot, most ad hoc working groups > (AHGs) dealing with specific proposals are wrapping up. Many AHGs have > already agreed text, which has been sent to Committee 5 (COM5), Committee 6 > (COM6), and the Plenary Working Group (WGPL). Once agreed in an ad hoc, the > text rarely gets re-opened for discussion in the Committees or WGPL, and > even more rarely in the Plenary. > > > Discussions > > What follows is an overview of main discussions divided by relevant AHGs. > The list is not exhaustive. For a visual representation of various AHGs > pertaining to the WGPL, see this useful chart > created by Samantha > Dickinson (who has also been diligently > live-tweeting the meeting). > > COM5 AHG on draft new resolution on counterfeit devices > > Status: Ad hoc closed, text > > sent to COM5 which will consider it on Monday afternoon. > > Highlights: > > - > > All references to ‘unauthorised devices’ have been dropped so the > resolution is now only about counterfeit devices. > - > > References to a device database in which all telecommunications/ICT > would need to be registered, are removed from the document; > - > > Problematic language on combating counterfeit is now balanced by > reference to taking into consideration ‘importance of maintaining user > connectivity’ (which is very similar to the BB recommendation). This means > that in combating counterfeit equipment, countries should not simply > disconnect all counterfeit devices without considering how this affects > user connectivity, which is great win for end-users. > - > > We did not manage to get references to IMEI and other unique > identifiers completely out of the text, but it doesn't seem that this will > do much harm or increase mandate of ITU, since this is mostly regulated via > national legislation and regulation and the provision on the consideration > of end-user connectivity. ITU-T also already has a strong standard on this > (namely X.1255 which can be found here: > http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1255-201309-I > > > > AHGs on ITU openness and transparency (Decisions 11 & 12, New Decision on > Access to ITU documents) > > Status: Ad hoc on access to documents closed, text > > agreed by COM5; Ad hoc on Decision 11 > > (opening up CWGs) ongoing, next to meet on Monday afternoon. > > Highlights: > > COM5 AHG on access to documents (New decision): > > - > > Member States agreed on the broad principle that the ITU needs to be > more transparent and that more of its documents should be open to the > public. > - > > They disagreed on how this should be done in practice (what the > official policy would look like), who should take the decision, and the > appropriate timeframe. > - > > The agreed text decides to open all input and output documents of ITU > conference and assemblies starting in 2015. It then instructs one of the > Council Working Groups to draft a policy to present to the Council for > consideration. The Council can then, on an interim basis, decide to > implement the policy, as appropriate. The final decision on policy to be > taken at PP 2018. > > > WGPL AHG on Council Working Groups (CWGs) & CWG Internet (Decision 11): > > - > > [Currently, all CWGs are open to all ITU Member States; some are open > to Sector Members; none are open to observers. CWG-Internet is only open to > Member States. Best Bits submitted a request to open this CWG in 2013, > which was denied by Council.] > - > > Proposals from Europe and US ask for all CWGs to be open to all Member > States and Sector members, and for CWG-Internet to be open to all > stakeholders. There is no agreement on this and discussions are ongoing. > > > WGPL AHG on Resolution 130 (Strengthening the role of ITU in building > confidence and security in the use of ICTs) > > Status: Ad hoc closed, text > > to be presented for WGPL consideration on Monday afternoon. > > Highlights: > > - > > The agreed text does not diverge greatly from the original Resolution > 130 – an outcome that is most aligned with proposals from those who > advocated a ‘no-change’ approach to this Resolution (US, Europe); > - > > Proposals to include references to privacy and human rights have been > resisted; > - > > Proposals for the ITU to come up with a roadmap for dealing with > cybersecurity have equally been resisted, > > > WGPL AGH on Internet-related resolutions (Res 101, Res 102, Res 133, Res > 180, and new proposals) > > Status: Ad hoc closed. Texts to be considered by WGPL on Monday > afternoon. Status of texts as of Nov 2 is available here > > (updated text from Nov 3 not yet online). > > Highlights: > > - > > Compromise text was reached on all Internet-related resolutions, with > minor revisions, some slight improvements, and a limited concession on the > side of the US/Europe to acknowledge more explicitly the role of the ITU in > Internet-related issues (particularly in Res 102); > - > > It was also agreed that the ITU should take a more conservative > approach to opening up the CWG Internet. On that point, it was agreed that > CWG Internet will hold open consultations on various agenda items prior to > CWG meetings, but otherwise the doors of the CWG will stay closed to > non-Member States; > - > > The 4 newly proposed resolutions have been withdrawn, including the > controversial Indian proposal (IND/98), which will nevertheless get a > mention in the Chairman's report, > > > WGPL AHG on Res 174 (ITU's role with regard to international public > policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of ICTs) > > Status: Ad hoc closed, text > > agreed by WGPL > > Highlights: > > - > > Outcome document has been boiled down to awareness raising and > sticking to the ITU’s existing mandate in combatting illicit use of ICTs; > - > > All references to ‘global charter’ related to security of ICTs have > been dropped, > > > WGPL AHG on WSIS related resolutions (Res 140, Res 172) > > Status: Ad hoc on WSIS reached agreement on Res 140 text > , > which was subsequently considered and approved by WGPL. Res 172 has been > supressed. > > Highlights: > > - > > The group decided to supress Resolution 172 (reasons: text seen as > out-dated and otherwise covered in Res 140), which was subsequently > approved by WGPL. > - > > The agreed text of Res 140 resolves that ITU continues its > facilitating role in the WSIS process, subject to UNGA 2015 WSIS Review, > and continues being the lead facilitator in relevant WSIS Action Lines as > specified in the Tunis Agenda (C2, C5, C6). The resolution encourages the > UNGA overall review to take into account ITU’s review of the WSIS, > including the outcome doc of WSIS+10 High Level Event. > > > WGPL AHG on Res 64 (Non-discriminatory access) > Status: Ad hoc closed, proposed text to be considered by WGPL on Monday > afternoon > Highlights: > > - > > It is also worth noting the discussion on Resolution 64 > , > which has spurred a stand off between Cuba and others in relation to > non-discriminatory access to ICTs. For context, similar discussions have, > arguably, led to the break-down of WCIT. It now seems that a compromise > text has been found and should be presented to WGPL on Monday afternoon. > > > ---- > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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 > > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Nov 3 14:12:07 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 06:12:07 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> So it’s back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM To: Best Bits ; Governance Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Begin forwarded message: Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC From: NETmundial Secretariat To: NETmundial Secretariat You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. The Initiative’s way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) · Audio Dial-in Numbers o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 o Conference ID: 9037957 · Adobe Connect Login Information o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ o Click on “Enter as Guest” o Enter your name o Click Enter Room A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. --- International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers Int'l toll free - Argentina: 0800 444 8243 Int'l toll free - Australia: 1 800 617 345 Int'l toll free - Austria: 0800 295 793 Int'l toll free - Bahamas: 1 800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Belgium: 0 800 75 852 Int'l toll free - Brazil: 0 800 038 0502 Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: 00 800 115 1144 Int'l toll free - Chile: 123 0020 6703 Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: 10 800 714 1511 Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: 10 800 140 1377 Int'l toll free - Colombia: 01 800 518 1235 Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: 800 700 627 Int'l toll free - Denmark: 80 883 474 Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: 1 888 751 4803 Int'l toll free - Ecuador: 1 800 020 509 Int'l toll free - France: 0 800 914 217 Int'l toll free - Germany: 0 800 183 0668 Int'l toll free - Greece: 00 800 161 2203 8243 Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: 800 968 835 Int'l toll free - Hungary: 06 800 112 85 Int'l toll free - India: 000 800 1007 606 Int'l toll free - Indonesia: 001 803 016 8243 Int'l toll free - Ireland: 1 800 947 407 Int'l toll free - Israel: 1 80 925 8243 Int'l toll free - Italy: 800 789 381 Int'l toll free - Japan: 00348 0040 0942 Int'l toll free - Latvia: 8000 3532 Int'l toll free - Lithuania: 8 800 3 09 71 Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: 800 2 4396 Int'l toll free - Malaysia: 1800 81 4728 Int'l toll free - Mexico: 001 800 514 8243 Int'l toll free - Monaco: 800 93 601 Int'l toll free - Netherlands: 0 800 022 1719 Int'l toll free - New Zealand: 0 800 451 591 Int'l toll free - Norway: 800 188 28 Int'l toll free - Panama: 00 800 226 8243 Int'l toll free - Philippines: 1 800 111 016 50 Int'l toll free - Poland: 00 800 112 41 48 Int'l toll free - Portugal: 800 827 563 Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: 810 800 2920 1012 Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: 800 101 2323 Int'l toll free - Slovakia: 0800 606 370 Int'l toll free - Slovenia: 0 800 80441 Int'l toll free - South Africa: 0 800 982 293 Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: 003 0813 2347 Int'l toll free - Spain: 900 937 669 Int'l toll free - Sweden: 02 079 4840 Int'l toll free - Switzerland: 0 800 890 126 Int'l toll free - Taiwan: 00 801 127 460 Int'l toll free - Thailand: 001 800 156 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: 1800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: 800 017 0998 Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: 0 808 101 7162 Int'l toll free - Uruguay: 0004 019 0352 Int'l toll free - Venezuela: 0 800 100 8542 -- Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************************************** 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 *********************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > From: NETmundial Secretariat > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > The Initiative’s way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br ), the World Economic Forum (WEF ), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN ), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62 ) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > o Click on “Enter as Guest” > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org . > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > > 0 800 100 8542 > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative *********************************************** 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: 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 19:04:48 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:04:48 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <328601cff7c2$f766cfa0$e6346ee0$@gmail.com> The issue is not “participation” but “accountability”. To whom are these “stakeholders” accountable apart from to themselves or to whomever has paid for their participation? Are their formal procedures for accountability, are their relationship to their funders transparent, if one group of stakeholders or simply one group of participant concerned about the nature of the participation/representation of another group what measures are available to challenge that participation and under what terms? Who is accountable to ensure “the public interest”? How is one able to ensure the “accountability” of the entire process and to would the entire process be accountable? Of course, there are flaws and failures but it is quite simple to answer each of the above for “democratic” decision making processes… but I’m still waiting for someone to enlighten me as to how MS process can be held accountable. M From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:36 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; 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 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. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein 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” ​ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 23:51:16 2014 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:21:16 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] On India at ITU PP 2014. Message-ID: Dear All, The Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi is working on a project that looks at India's engagement with global internet governance fora. As a part of this, my colleague Arun Mohan Sukumar has been following the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014. Anyone looking for information on India's inputs at the PP is welcome to follow Arun's posts on our blog: - Indian statement on ITU and Internet at the Working Group Plenary - Re-drafted resolution from India at the ITU Plenipotentiary - On the international politics of ITU negotiations For background, my colleague Ujwala has written on India and the Internet at PP-!4 . We welcome your feedback and inputs. Best wishes, Chinmayi Chinmayi Arun | Research Director Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 971-770-2630 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @chinmayiarun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 03:04:15 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 03:04:15 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Transcript from this Tuesday Afternoon Com5 Message-ID: attached if of interest -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: COM5TuesdayAfternoon.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 169335 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 05:32:33 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 11:32:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Hi > On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) Just to make sure we’re clear: per the August FAQ, NMI is NOT a continuation of Sao Paulo in the sense of global norm-setting. It does not take over any policymaking activity previously done elsewhere. It is a platform upon which people can build projects. The four initial projects were announced in August and are underway, driven by academics (2), CGI.br (1) and ICANN (1). The idea is that over time other groupings including CS could propose stuff on the platform, maybe find partners and other connections, and make stuff happen. As noted previously, WEF could use CS help in figuring out how to build and operate a platform that is open to all to use in this manner. Otherwise I assume CGI.br will be the main configurative force. There have been recalibrations based on feedback, in particular from CS. The former Steering Committee will now be a Coordinating Committee and its membership will likely be selected on a bottom-up basis by different stakeholder groups, as CS participants argued for in August. Given our experience with 1NET, it’s a fair guess this could mean it will take some time to put that group in place. > with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). Yes > 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). The three orgs are each devoting a small piece of staff support. One of the four projects’ is ICANN’s, and it’s the least clear at this point. > But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA. And to Ian’s point, there is supposed to be a lot of press on the webinar so someone may raise the point, but if they don't you could of course ask Virgilio to explain the intra-CGI.br process here. They wanted to keep the name. Best Bill > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter > Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 20:12 > An: William Drake; Best Bits; Governance > Betreff: Re: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > > So it's back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? > > Ian Peter > > From: William Drake > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM > To: Best Bits ; Governance > Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > > > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 > > Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC > > From: NETmundial Secretariat > > To: NETmundial Secretariat > > > You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. > > > > The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. > > > > > The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. > > > > Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). > > · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 > > · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) > > · Audio Dial-in Numbers > > o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 > > o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 > > o Conference ID: 9037957 > > · Adobe Connect Login Information > > o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ > > o Click on "Enter as Guest" > > o Enter your name > > o Click Enter Room > > > > A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. > > > > The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. > > > > For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. > > --- > > > > International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers > > > Int'l toll free - Argentina: > 0800 444 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Australia: > 1 800 617 345 > > > Int'l toll free - Austria: > 0800 295 793 > > > Int'l toll free - Bahamas: > 1 800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Belgium: > 0 800 75 852 > > > Int'l toll free - Brazil: > 0 800 038 0502 > > > Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: > 00 800 115 1144 > > > Int'l toll free - Chile: > 123 0020 6703 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: > 10 800 714 1511 > > > Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: > 10 800 140 1377 > > > Int'l toll free - Colombia: > 01 800 518 1235 > > > Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: > 800 700 627 > > > Int'l toll free - Denmark: > 80 883 474 > > > Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: > 1 888 751 4803 > > > Int'l toll free - Ecuador: > 1 800 020 509 > > > Int'l toll free - France: > 0 800 914 217 > > > Int'l toll free - Germany: > 0 800 183 0668 > > > Int'l toll free - Greece: > 00 800 161 2203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: > 800 968 835 > > > Int'l toll free - Hungary: > 06 800 112 85 > > > Int'l toll free - India: > 000 800 1007 606 > > > Int'l toll free - Indonesia: > 001 803 016 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Ireland: > 1 800 947 407 > > > Int'l toll free - Israel: > 1 80 925 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Italy: > 800 789 381 > > > Int'l toll free - Japan: > 00348 0040 0942 > > > Int'l toll free - Latvia: > 8000 3532 > > > Int'l toll free - Lithuania: > 8 800 3 09 71 > > > Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: > 800 2 4396 > > > Int'l toll free - Malaysia: > 1800 81 4728 > > > Int'l toll free - Mexico: > 001 800 514 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Monaco: > 800 93 601 > > > Int'l toll free - Netherlands: > 0 800 022 1719 > > > Int'l toll free - New Zealand: > 0 800 451 591 > > > Int'l toll free - Norway: > 800 188 28 > > > Int'l toll free - Panama: > 00 800 226 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Philippines: > 1 800 111 016 50 > > > Int'l toll free - Poland: > 00 800 112 41 48 > > > Int'l toll free - Portugal: > 800 827 563 > > > Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: > 810 800 2920 1012 > > > Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: > 800 101 2323 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovakia: > 0800 606 370 > > > Int'l toll free - Slovenia: > 0 800 80441 > > > Int'l toll free - South Africa: > 0 800 982 293 > > > Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: > 003 0813 2347 > > > Int'l toll free - Spain: > 900 937 669 > > > Int'l toll free - Sweden: > 02 079 4840 > > > Int'l toll free - Switzerland: > 0 800 890 126 > > > Int'l toll free - Taiwan: > 00 801 127 460 > > > Int'l toll free - Thailand: > 001 800 156 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: > 1800 203 8243 > > > Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: > 800 017 0998 > > > Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: > 0 808 101 7162 > > > Int'l toll free - Uruguay: > 0004 019 0352 > > > Int'l toll free - Venezuela: > 0 800 100 8542 > > > > -- > Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > *********************************************** > 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 > *********************************************** > > > > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Nov 4 07:41:58 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 07:41:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Message-ID: I did, a little after the event, rip the WEF NMI webcast over to youtube for easy reference W.E.F. NETmundial Initiative - Initial Scoping Meeting W.E.F. NETmundial Initiative - Press Conference W.E.F. NETmundial Initiative - Debrief with Founding Partners -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Nov 4 19:08:52 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:08:52 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Bill and Wolfgang for the clarifications. I am not sure that I will be able to handle a webinar at 2am AEDT, but perhaps those listening in could get clarity on this, ie Virgilio could be asked to comment on ongoing use of Netmundial name and any involvement with cgi.br as regards this. It would also be good to raise again in this context the issue of civil society (and other stakeholders for that matter) determining their own representation on the Co-ordinating Committee, and getting some indication of possible timeframes and procedures for this. One thing that has advanced since the last time involvement with WEF was raised as a possibility is a broadly agreed on procedure as regards civil society participation if CSCG is to be involved, ie “CSCG will not be involved in any appointments of CS representatives if more than 35% of its coalition members determine not to be involved in the process, or where the number with a clear determination to be involved does not exceed those expressing a wish not to be involved. (Others may have a neutral or undecided stance). Where coalition members choose not to be involved and a decision to proceed is made, their decision to do so will be announced (if they so wish) as part of any announcement of chosen representatives. The decision to be involved or not is the primary responsibility of each constituency.” The coalition members for this purpose would be IGC, Best Bits, Just Net, Diplo, NCSG, and APC. I suspect, as regards any timeframes, it would be quite quick to select representatives once coalitions had determined whether to be involved or not, but the decision as to whether to be involved by each group could take some time; particularly if there is not clarity as regards structures, processes etc. So a lot of clarity would be very useful! I will try to make the webinar, but I do suggest others should seek as much clarity as possible on these structural and procedural issues. Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 9:32 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter Cc: Governance ; Ian Peter ; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Hi On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: My understanding is that the NMI is now a "continuation" of Sao Paulo´s NetMundial (to implement the Roadmap as the main mandate) Just to make sure we’re clear: per the August FAQ, NMI is NOT a continuation of Sao Paulo in the sense of global norm-setting. It does not take over any policymaking activity previously done elsewhere. It is a platform upon which people can build projects. The four initial projects were announced in August and are underway, driven by academics (2), CGI.br (1) and ICANN (1). The idea is that over time other groupings including CS could propose stuff on the platform, maybe find partners and other connections, and make stuff happen. As noted previously, WEF could use CS help in figuring out how to build and operate a platform that is open to all to use in this manner. Otherwise I assume CGI.br will be the main configurative force. There have been recalibrations based on feedback, in particular from CS. The former Steering Committee will now be a Coordinating Committee and its membership will likely be selected on a bottom-up basis by different stakeholder groups, as CS participants argued for in August. Given our experience with 1NET, it’s a fair guess this could mean it will take some time to put that group in place. with cgi.br in the leadership position (easier after Rousseff won the election and Virgilio remains the key leader). Yes 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). The three orgs are each devoting a small piece of staff support. One of the four projects’ is ICANN’s, and it’s the least clear at this point. But lets wait for the Webinar. Virgilio will explain the outcome from the various consultations in and aftrer LA. And to Ian’s point, there is supposed to be a lot of press on the webinar so someone may raise the point, but if they don't you could of course ask Virgilio to explain the intra-CGI.br process here. They wanted to keep the name. Best Bill -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Ian Peter Gesendet: Mo 03.11.2014 20:12 An: William Drake; Best Bits; Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC So it's back to being the NETmundial initiative again. I note the involvement of Virgilio Almeida, but are any of our colleagues , particularly those with with affiliations with cgi.br, aware of any endorsement or MOU as regards NETmundial name being used for this? Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:23 PM To: Best Bits ; Governance Subject: [governance] Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC Begin forwarded message: Date: November 3, 2014 at 11:05:04 AM GMT+1 Subject: Webinar Invitation on the Official Launch of the NETmundial Initiative | 6 November at 15:00 UTC From: NETmundial Secretariat To: NETmundial Secretariat You are cordially invited to participate in a webinar session marking the official launch of the NETmundial Initiative. The Initiative's way forward has been shaped by the feedback collected from the various community dialogues since the NETmundial-inspired meeting hosted by the World Economic Forum in Geneva on 28 August 2014. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will discuss these developments, in addition to the role of the multistakeholder NETmundial Initiative in energizing bottom-up, collaborative Internet governance solutions in a distributed ecosystem. Speakers: Virgilio Augusto Fernandes Almeida (CGI.br), Richard Samans (WEF) and Fadi Chehadé (ICANN). · Date: Thursday, 6 November 2014 · Time: 15:00 - 16:00 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/kpl4c62) · Audio Dial-in Numbers o USA/CAN Toll Free: 877-397-0286 o Int'l Toll Free: 719-325-4745 o Conference ID: 9037957 · Adobe Connect Login Information o https://djeholdings.adobeconnect.com/r8y97sljopf/ o Click on "Enter as Guest" o Enter your name o Click Enter Room A question and answer session will take place after remarks from the speakers. The webinar will be recorded and made available online for those unable to join. For questions, please contact secretariat at netmundial.org. --- International Toll-Free Dial-in Numbers Int'l toll free - Argentina: 0800 444 8243 Int'l toll free - Australia: 1 800 617 345 Int'l toll free - Austria: 0800 295 793 Int'l toll free - Bahamas: 1 800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Belgium: 0 800 75 852 Int'l toll free - Brazil: 0 800 038 0502 Int'l toll free - Bulgaria: 00 800 115 1144 Int'l toll free - Chile: 123 0020 6703 Int'l toll free - China, Northern Region: 10 800 714 1511 Int'l toll free - China, Southern Region: 10 800 140 1377 Int'l toll free - Colombia: 01 800 518 1235 Int'l toll free - Czech Republic: 800 700 627 Int'l toll free - Denmark: 80 883 474 Int'l toll free - Dominican Republic: 1 888 751 4803 Int'l toll free - Ecuador: 1 800 020 509 Int'l toll free - France: 0 800 914 217 Int'l toll free - Germany: 0 800 183 0668 Int'l toll free - Greece: 00 800 161 2203 8243 Int'l toll free - Hong Kong: 800 968 835 Int'l toll free - Hungary: 06 800 112 85 Int'l toll free - India: 000 800 1007 606 Int'l toll free - Indonesia: 001 803 016 8243 Int'l toll free - Ireland: 1 800 947 407 Int'l toll free - Israel: 1 80 925 8243 Int'l toll free - Italy: 800 789 381 Int'l toll free - Japan: 00348 0040 0942 Int'l toll free - Latvia: 8000 3532 Int'l toll free - Lithuania: 8 800 3 09 71 Int'l toll free - Luxembourg: 800 2 4396 Int'l toll free - Malaysia: 1800 81 4728 Int'l toll free - Mexico: 001 800 514 8243 Int'l toll free - Monaco: 800 93 601 Int'l toll free - Netherlands: 0 800 022 1719 Int'l toll free - New Zealand: 0 800 451 591 Int'l toll free - Norway: 800 188 28 Int'l toll free - Panama: 00 800 226 8243 Int'l toll free - Philippines: 1 800 111 016 50 Int'l toll free - Poland: 00 800 112 41 48 Int'l toll free - Portugal: 800 827 563 Int'l toll free - Russian Federation: 810 800 2920 1012 Int'l toll free - Singapore, Singapore: 800 101 2323 Int'l toll free - Slovakia: 0800 606 370 Int'l toll free - Slovenia: 0 800 80441 Int'l toll free - South Africa: 0 800 982 293 Int'l toll free - South Korea, Korea, Republic Of: 003 0813 2347 Int'l toll free - Spain: 900 937 669 Int'l toll free - Sweden: 02 079 4840 Int'l toll free - Switzerland: 0 800 890 126 Int'l toll free - Taiwan: 00 801 127 460 Int'l toll free - Thailand: 001 800 156 203 8243 Int'l toll free - Trinidad and Tobago: 1800 203 8243 Int'l toll free - United Arab Emirates: 800 017 0998 Int'l toll free - United Kingdom: 0 808 101 7162 Int'l toll free - Uruguay: 0004 019 0352 Int'l toll free - Venezuela: 0 800 100 8542 -- Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************************************** 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:23:12 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:23:12 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <63D52A7B-B43D-48CF-B56D-B6AB0AEF5C2E@difference.com.au> On 25 Oct 2014, at 2:19 am, michael gurstein wrote: > As I pointed out in an earlier message 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”. In iCANN processes, general users of the Internet qualify as stakeholders. While obviously it is impractical for someone who does not yet have access to the Internet to directly participate, there is no barrier to anyone who wishes to advocate for the interests of that group participating, and some do. There are no effective bars to participation based on the definition of stakeholder. This applies to most other MS bodies - for example, becoming involved with an IETF process is literally as simple as joining a mailing list. If you want to be involved in a specific process, you can. They are very open - far, far, more open than any government policy development process of which I am aware. And Michael, you should know this. Are you ignorant of this, despite having allegedly studied these institutions for years, or disingenuously lumping IG MS bodies in with the WEF etc again? You keep using 'self-appointed' as if it is a terrible thing. If the process is truly open, of course many participants will be self-appointed. You keep using self-appointed pejoratively - I'm taking from this that you want a closed process, in which all participants are gatekeepered (presumably by governments, or some other bureaucratic process?)? Regards David > > Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greekdemos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … > 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”. > M > > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:13 AM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > On 24/10/2014 11:03 am, michael gurstein wrote: > > As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so.” > > And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right time and place” to give that definition! > > That's why I set up a fluid working group under Best Bits to develop such a definition, but there was not much participation (or maybe the LiquidFeedback software was too complex for people to be comfortable using): > > http://bestbits.net/lf/ > > So far, FWIW, this is the definition that has most support (Avri wrote it): > > Multistakeholderism: study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and the implementations. > with the following definitions of some included terms > > Equal footing: > The recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet governance this is in line with stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number of people that a representative may claim. Notions of equal footing must take into account all aspects of capacity to participate, and must strive to enable full participation through capacity building and development agendas. > > Stakeholder: > A term borrowed from Project Management. > > ” Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations, or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively involved in a project’s work, affected by the project’s outcome, or in a position to affect the project’s success. “ > > and the derivative: > > Multistakeholder process: > A form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. > > > > -- > 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: -------------- 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 21:11:12 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 21:11:12 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] PP captioning of transcripts Message-ID: You probably have seen this, but just in case, here are the links for the archives captioning so far. from https://www.itu.int/en/plenipotentiary/2014/Pages/webcast.aspx *Captioning archives*: - Plenary 20 October - PM - Plenary 21 October - AM - Plenary 21 October - PM - Plenary 22 October - AM - Plenary 22 October - PM - Plenary 23 October - AM - Plenary 23 October - PM - Plenary 24 October - AM - Plenary 24 October - PM - Plenary 27 October - AM - Plenary 3 November - PM - WGPL 22 October - AM - WGPL 23 October - AM - WGPL 24 October - AM - WGPL 28 October - AM - WGPL 28 October - PM - WGPL 29 October - AM - WGPL 31 October - AM - WGPL 31 October - PM - WGPL 3 November - AM - WGPL 3 November - PM - COM5 22 October - PM - COM5 23 October - PM - COM5 24 October - AM - COM5 28 October - AM - COM5 29 October - AM - COM5 30 October - PM - COM5 31 October - AM - COM5 3 November - AM - COM6 21 October - PM - COM6 23 October - AM - COM6 23 October - PM - COM6 27 October - AM - COM6 27 October - PM - COM6 28 October - PM - COM6 29 October - PM - COM6 30 October - AM - COM6 31 October - PM - COM6 3 November - AM -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Nov 5 01:03:22 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:33:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Contributions: Combating counterfeit devices at the ITU Message-ID: Dear all, During the ITU Plenipot, a small group of us had a meeting with Mr. Zhao, Secretary-General elect of the ITU, to share with him the ways in which civil society has already contributed to the work of the ITU and how we hope to build on this in the future. During this conversation, we mentioned as one example of civil society's contribution to the Plenipot the work some of us have been involved in regarding counterfeit devices and the importance of considering user rights in battling such devices. In response, the ITU flagged this *call for contributions to an ITU event on Combating Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Devices*, which will take place later this month in Geneva. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx Though the last date for contributions has strictly speaking gone, the ITU has been glad to extent it until 10 November, in the hope that at least some from civil society would then still be able to make an input. It would be great if some here could indeed do so! Thanks and all the best, Anja -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 5 03:39:16 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:39:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Republican Congress Message-ID: I would be incidently interested in comments on the impact of a fully Republican Congress on the NTIA/executive+international to FCC/legislative+domestic switch. jfc From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Nov 5 11:06:56 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:06:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [Ianaplan] A Libre IUser community Draft Message-ID: Dear all, In order to permit a normal work of the IETF/WG/IANAPLAN that has committed to consider proposals from other communities, and due to the I_D sumission cut-off period we had not anticipated, we have formally created a small Libre IUWG at http://iuwg.net to publish and complete the draft we had prepared as a contribution from an RFC 6852 small global community/NTIA stakeholder. This unplaned WG will formalize in the coming days/weeks. To please Jay Daley: we are Libre members of the Montpellier area where we hold the RMLL in july, members of few friendly specialized lists of mine, a Libre development lab in the cyberagora field, the founders of a small communities/villages oriented Libre non-profit Digital Services Provider under incroporation, etc.. So, it is likely that our IP addresses will sometimes be in the same geographical area, and probably from our own AS (planned for Jannuary 2015). :-) No to slow down the clear compromise process we propose we have only updated a few words in our draft 0.0, (prepared for an IETF/WG) in order to address the issue in the perspective that a separate WG or SDO shares with the IETF, IRT our own names, numbers and parameters referent registries for our users. You will find the draft at the http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.00.pdf We understand that the WG/IANAPLAN will consider in a meeting on Nov 10 if they want to amalgamate (some of) our positions within a WG/IANAPLAN revised draft or if we will have to advance our positions separately. We will therefore not discuss them outsie of the WG/IANAPLAN until their decision, but we can provide additional inputs. Please note that our focus is not on the political aspects of the US Governance of the Internet (NTIA vs FCC) but on our best interests in the global ITU, IG, Russia/China, Libre/Oligarchic, regalian/business/civil, etc multi-macro/micro-stakeholder context, and mostly on the various MYCANN plug-ins developments being considered or under way. Best jfc From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 11:04:51 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:04:51 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: new report + searchable website of existing cyber definitions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim Maurer Date: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:55 AM Subject: new report + searchable website of existing cyber definitions To: ran at ourinternet.org Dear all, You might be interested in a new report we published yesterday outlining existing definitions of cybersecurity and information security related which are also accessible via a new website: cyberdefinitions.newamerica.org The study was funded by the Swiss government that currently chairs the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The report was written to provide input for the OSCE’s efforts to develop confidence-building measures to reduce the risks of conflict stemming from the use of cyberspace. The study offers a compilation of existing definitions primarily provided by international organizations and standard setting bodies as well as outlined in national (cyber-) security strategies and documents of states. These are complemented by terms from a few selected other sources such as the Oxford Dictionary on Computing. We expect that this data will also be useful for a much broader audience – including the RAN – as well as policy-makers and scholars, so we also launched the new website to make it more accessible. It includes a form to submit new definitions which will allow us to keep the website up to do date and to potentially expand it over time. Any feedback is most welcome as well as future submissions. Best, Tim -- ----------------- Tim Maurer Research Fellow New America, Open Technology Institute http://newamerica.net/user/515 maurer at newamerica.org -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Nov 6 13:10:09 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 19:10:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> Message-ID: <3FB9C416-7864-4D8A-AC3D-02065AA90906@theglobaljournal.net> You are so right Joao: "amazing" is the perfect "word" to describe this auto-appointment, sorry self designation! ;-) As the French saying goes on: "jamais mieux servi que par soi-même". Europe will be best served? Well, WK is certainly a seasoned IG usual suspect, and a nice MS storyteller, but in terms of representativity I have a legitimate doubt. JC Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:18, João Carlos Rebello Caribé a écrit : > Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and Europe will be well represented. > > I don't know if someone from LAC presented their candidature, but I think about some names: > > Joana Varon (Brazil) or > Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) > > []s > Joao Carlos Caribe > > Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > >> Hi Ian, >> >> it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. >> >> >> BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- > João Carlos R. Caribé > Consultor > Skype joaocaribe > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From jmalcolm at eff.org Thu Nov 6 13:23:31 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:23:31 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference Message-ID: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Nov 6 14:21:37 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 06:21:37 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> Message-ID: <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a few days. The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and the call for nominations is outlined at https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a good feature. CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from these people and others. For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only way of doing this. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. -- 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: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Nov 6 14:23:18 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 14:23:18 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> Message-ID: <545BCAA6.3090006@mail.utoronto.ca> NIce summary Jeremy! and a short timeline to decide on what appears to me to be a very unclear initiative. I would add that although there was a specific box on the interface to ask questions, noone else appears to have been able to see the questions others were asking, and noone who I have talked to had their questions asked/answered in the Q&A period. Also just to note that there appear to have been 166 people participating, which is a pretty good turnout for a webinar that conflicted with a number of other initiatives we are all engaged in. cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2014-11-06, 13:23, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to > find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which > had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised > organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance > of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, > ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be > contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite > partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is > on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where > there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, > mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has > its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will > continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's > Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name > of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to > "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to > be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this > meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an > equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if > someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are > permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil > society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will > be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, > the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) > governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private > sector - and across all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which > drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they > did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own > representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved > the right to decide between them if too many nominations were > received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we > are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG > Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF > that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within > a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed > to a nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > 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: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 15:09:23 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:09:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <389457F6D8174B2589C237F3B166ABAB@Toshiba> Message-ID: Jeremy suggests " (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.)" but since the nomination process begins from the individual that may not be possible. CSCG may make a selection, but still not everyone in civil society subscribes to the idea of CSCG. And the Netmundial Initiative isn't clear about the process to demonstrate that one "belongs" to a particular group. And what happens if CSCG decides not to be involved? At a time when civil society needs to search within itself for the areas in which it can present a united front to defend itself and its rights, it seems instead to be being split apart and fragmented, and becoming more and more helpless. Or perhaps I'm just being pessimistic today :-( Deirdre On 6 November 2014 15:21, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes – I agree with Jeremy that we really do need to decide within a > week if we are to participate, and if so how. I notice a few people putting > names forward on our lists already; if for the next few days we can have > discussions here and elsewhere as to whether or not to participate, that > would help to refine an approach and a possible call for nominations in a > few days. > > The NetMundial.org site is now revised to reflect this new initiative and > the call for nominations is outlined at > https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations. Names of all > people nominated are automatically made public immediately - I think a > good feature. > > CSCG is going to have to make a decision on whether to be involved or not, > and if so how. To assist this, I think there are many people reading this > list who listened in on the call – and in some cases were not able to ask > questions – so it would be good to have feedback on their impressions from > these people and others. > > For me as an individual – I think the concept of a forum to deal with > orphan issues is good and needed. However, irrespective of how good the > intentions of WEF ICANN and CGI.br are or are not, there is a substantial > structural issue if WEF decides who the representatives of civil society > are. I think they realise they have a problem there as well, and would > welcome some sort of solution. So I think there is room for us to offer a > way out of their dilemma. Putting forward nominations may not be the only > way of doing this. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, November 07, 2014 5:23 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to > find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had > drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised > organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the > Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) > and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in > crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. > The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on > developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to > de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate > but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a > permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and > contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be > changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the > NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's > work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in > stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on > evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent > seats for CGI.br, WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, > except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be > distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the > technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and > intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across > all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew > skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did > invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, > ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide > between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's > point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do > so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in > order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a > week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a > nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:33:12 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:33:12 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3F314044-822E-4B6F-BDA7-A82F0CB3671C@difference.com.au> On 25 Oct 2014, at 5:43 am, michael gurstein 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 > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen 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 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. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein 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: > 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: -------------- 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: From pouzin at well.com Thu Nov 6 19:26:20 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 01:26:20 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [governance] NetMundial In-Reply-To: References: <97D0068D-E737-4EB9-8E1E-E7D2BAD7815F@gmail.com> <5AD33DB64739402889AFACEF8A60440B@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642802@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <74439AF0-0530-4D07-9C15-A164880E4B96@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642831@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <00EA7234-A8B7-45E2-9177-1FA0F28FFE6B@entropia.blog.br> <3FB9C416-7864-4D8A-AC3D-02065AA90906@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Pouzin Date: Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , João Carlos Rebello Caribé , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Ian Peter < ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, William Drake , Best Bits < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Wolfgang is a talented colleague who can smell when the wind is shifting. He should rather promote his candidacy within the ICANN nebula, where he has been a well known activist for so long. Louis - - - On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > You are so right Joao: "amazing" is the perfect "word" to describe this > auto-appointment, sorry self designation! ;-) > > As the French saying goes on: "*jamais mieux servi que par soi-même*". > Europe will be best served? Well, WK is certainly a seasoned IG usual > suspect, and a nice MS storyteller, but in terms of representativity I have > a legitimate doubt. > > JC > > > Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:18, João Carlos Rebello Caribé a écrit : > > Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and Europe will be well > represented. > > I don't know if someone from LAC presented their candidature, but I think > about some names: > > Joana Varon (Brazil) or > Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) > > []s > Joao Carlos Caribe > > Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > > Hi Ian, > > > it was good to raise some question in today´s webinar, in particular to > the election/selection process. Already in the IGF Improvement WG of the > CSTD we argued in favour of a procedure that respected/recognized platforms > of the four stakeholder groups make their own selections. More or less this > was also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So lets just do it. We should > come up with a group of the five from our network of CS organisations. > > > > BTW, I personally would be interested to get the European seat in the CS > group of five. So I put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. > > > Wolfgang > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > -- > João Carlos R. Caribé > Consultor > Skype joaocaribe > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Nov 6 20:18:58 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:18:58 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [governance] NetMundial Message-ID: Full support Hurrah for Wolfgang! for ***both*** nebulas in order to watch the collusions (at the end of the day this should form a single "global network solution". Please look at http://gsnetworks.org/ : the very lengthy documented comment on the NTIA annoucement published by Lynn St-Amour the very same day was a book co-authored with their Boss (Don Tapscott). Gsnetwork is sponsored by Google, State Department, Royal Bank of Canada, HP, Qualcomm, etc. etc. IMHP JCN should investigate on these good samaritans of ISOC. jfc ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Pouzin <pouzin at enst.fr> Date: Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] NetMundial To: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, João Carlos Rebello Caribé <caribe at entropia.blog.br>, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>, Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Wolfgang is a talented colleague who can smell when the wind is shifting. He should rather promote his candidacy within the ICANN nebula, where he has been a well known activist for so long. Louis - - - On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: You are so right Joao: "amazing" is the perfect "word" to describe this auto-appointment, sorry self designation! ;-) As the French saying goes on: "jamais mieux servi que par soi-même". Europe will be best served? Well, WK is certainly a seasoned IG usual suspect, and a nice MS storyteller, but in terms of representativity I have a legitimate doubt. JC Le 6 nov. 2014 à 18:18, João Carlos Rebello Caribé a écrit : >Wolfgang your candidature appears amazing and >Europe will be well represented. >I don't know if someone from LAC presented their >candidature, but I think about some names: >Joana Varon (Brazil) or >Fatima Cabronero (Argentina) >[]s >Joao Carlos Caribe >Em 06/11/2014, às 15:02, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang escreveu: > >>Hi Ian, >>it was good to raise some question in today´s >>webinar, in particular to the >>election/selection process. Already in the IGF >>Improvement WG of the CSTD we argued in favour >>of a procedure that respected/recognized >>platforms of the four stakeholder groups make >>their own selections. More or less this was >>also the case for the NetMundial bodies. So >>lets just do it. We should come up with a group >>of the five from our network of CS organisations. >>BTW, I personally would be interested to get >>the European seat in the CS group of five. So I >>put my candidature Forward to the CS Group. >>Wolfgang >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>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 >-- >João Carlos R. Caribé >Consultor >Skype joaocaribe >(021) 9 8761 1967 > >____________________________________________________________ >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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" ____________________________________________________________ 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 From steve at openmedia.ca Thu Nov 6 21:21:43 2014 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 18:21:43 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] New Video Launched against restrictive TPP copyright proposals Message-ID: Hey all, working with a number of other organizations OpenMedia has released a video about TPP copyright proposals and alternatives that foreground free expression online. You can find the video here: https://openmedia.org/ourfuture Please check it out and share with your networks. Thanks to all who helped make this happen. -- *Steve Anderson* Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca 604-837-5730 http://openmedia.ca steve at openmedia.ca Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook * *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates. * **Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->> OurFairDeal.org * *Confidentiality Warning:* * This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you.Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 04:17:07 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 10:17:07 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> Message-ID: <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Hi Thanks Jeremy for the summary. Just to flag one immediate issue about the CC: the four categories of participants don’t correspond to the nongovernmental ones used for Sao Paulo and 1NET, and "academia, the technical community and foundations” are tossed together into one basket. I’m not sure what process can be devised here to get those three distinct groupings to agree on 5 names, inter alia since foundations have not been organized and engaged in IG processes as a stakeholder group. Unless a coordinated solution can be found (e.g. 2/2/1), one can easily imagine them getting more than 5 nominations, in which case CGI.br, ICANN and WEF will end up having to pick their best guess of a mix those groups will accept. So making this work as a thoroughly bottom-up process could be a challenge even if CS and business can work out their respective issues. More differentiated baskets would have saved some headaches. How to constitute the CC is obviously just one of the questions that will have to be worked through. How exactly the platform would operate and what the CC’s role and responsibilities would be also are very much TBD. One could imagine the CC overseeing the design of the platform; serving as as a facilitator of connections when someone proposes a project and solicits partners/support; facilitating the dissemination of progress reports; etc. But should it do more than this? It’s not clear that the CC should be deciding which project proposals can be appear on the platform; specifying a framework for their formulation and conduct; overseeing their progress, and so on. I guess it will be for the CC to figure these things out in consultation with the wider communities. One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive forums/processes, no? Best Bill > On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, and on developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > 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 :: > *********************************************** 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 *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne.jellema at webfoundation.org Fri Nov 7 07:53:23 2014 From: anne.jellema at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:53:23 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy, Bill and others for the info. Before we dive into our favourite pastime of arguing about who represents whom and how they should be chosen, I'm interested to know what others think about the value add of this forum in the first place. Isn't "a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet and .... develop solutions where none exist" a pretty good description of what the IGF is or should be? Is there really a need for WEF and ICANN to divert time and resources into creating another one? best Anne On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Thanks Jeremy for the summary. Just to flag one immediate issue about the > CC: the four categories of participants don’t correspond to the > nongovernmental ones used for Sao Paulo and 1NET, and "academia, the > technical community and foundations” are tossed together into one basket. > I’m not sure what process can be devised here to get those three distinct > groupings to agree on 5 names, inter alia since foundations have not been > organized and engaged in IG processes as a stakeholder group. Unless a > coordinated solution can be found (e.g. 2/2/1), one can easily imagine them > getting more than 5 nominations, in which case CGI.br, ICANN and WEF will > end up having to pick their best guess of a mix those groups will accept. > So making this work as a thoroughly bottom-up process could be a challenge > even if CS and business can work out their respective issues. More > differentiated baskets would have saved some headaches. > > How to constitute the CC is obviously just one of the questions that will > have to be worked through. How exactly the platform would operate and what > the CC’s role and responsibilities would be also are very much TBD. One > could imagine the CC overseeing the design of the platform; serving as as a > facilitator of connections when someone proposes a project and solicits > partners/support; facilitating the dissemination of progress reports; etc. > But should it do more than this? It’s not clear that the CC should be > deciding which project proposals can be appear on the platform; specifying > a framework for their formulation and conduct; overseeing their progress, > and so on. I guess it will be for the CC to figure these things out in > consultation with the wider communities. > > One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM > Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the > August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A > priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise > the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to > stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the > discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive > forums/processes, no? > > Best > > Bill > > On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to > find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had > drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. > > The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised > organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the > Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and > WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone > in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for > assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, > and on developing solutions where there are gaps. > > There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly to > de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own separate > but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to enjoy a > permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, and > contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not be > changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the > NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's > work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in > stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on > evolving them if someone proposed this.) > > The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are permanent > seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, > the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil society, > except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will be > distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the > technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and > intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across > all geographical regions. > > There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew > skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did > invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, > ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide > between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's > point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do > so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in > order to avoid giving WEF that power.) > > Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a > week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a > nomination process through the CSCG. > > -- > 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 :: > > > *********************************************** > 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 > -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) Twitter: @afjellema PGP: A84F061D *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Nov 7 14:43:21 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:43:21 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 7, 2014, at 1:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > > One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive forums/processes, no? I definitely don't want (what is shaping into) such a corporate-dominated initiative elaborating on the NETmundial principles either. But the reason I keep raising this is twofold - first, to raise the stakes for other more inclusive forums/processes that have become complacent and failed to realise their potential, for which NETmundial could (and at the meeting in São Paulo, did) provide some healthy competition and the impetus for further reforms that would prevent them slipping into irrelevance. Second, due to the choice of name. It seems a bit odd when the most distinctive thing about NETmundial was that it produced a tangible outcome, that the continuation of NETmundial using its name is precluded from doing that. I would still rather they didn't freeride on the goodwill of the NETmundial name, for which may people feel a sense of community ownership, for something that is quite different. (But I realise that it's a tough argument to make when two of the main players behind NETmundial are driving the 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 :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 20:53:37 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 21:53:37 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] A few notes from the NETmundial phone conference In-Reply-To: References: <545BBCA3.2050704@eff.org> <0DC996BB-50B0-4FAA-8535-A2AF2B806633@gmail.com> Message-ID: For what it's worth -` There was a short meeting in Istanbul between a team from WEF and representatives of the CSCG. I was there to represent Mawaki, the IGC member of the CSCG. My impression from that meeting was that what was being proposed was essentially a clearinghouse for projects that would bring project proposers and potential funders together with the intention of " develop[ing] solutions where none exist". The WEF apparently already does something similar in a more general development context. This would be for specifically Internet/IG related projects. I thought I heard something similar yesterday, although everything was rather fuzzy. This may be completely erroneous but that's what it sounded like under the decoration. It may become clearer when the transcript is made available. Deirdre On 7 November 2014 08:53, Anne Jellema wrote: > Thanks Jeremy, Bill and others for the info. > Before we dive into our favourite pastime of arguing about who represents > whom and how they should be chosen, I'm interested to know what others > think about the value add of this forum in the first place. > Isn't "a platform to support distributed governance of the Internet and > .... develop solutions where none exist" a pretty good description of what > the IGF is or should be? Is there really a need for WEF and ICANN to divert > time and resources into creating another one? > best > Anne > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Thanks Jeremy for the summary. Just to flag one immediate issue about >> the CC: the four categories of participants don’t correspond to the >> nongovernmental ones used for Sao Paulo and 1NET, and "academia, the >> technical community and foundations” are tossed together into one basket. >> I’m not sure what process can be devised here to get those three distinct >> groupings to agree on 5 names, inter alia since foundations have not been >> organized and engaged in IG processes as a stakeholder group. Unless a >> coordinated solution can be found (e.g. 2/2/1), one can easily imagine them >> getting more than 5 nominations, in which case CGI.br, ICANN and WEF >> will end up having to pick their best guess of a mix those groups will >> accept. So making this work as a thoroughly bottom-up process could be a >> challenge even if CS and business can work out their respective issues. >> More differentiated baskets would have saved some headaches. >> >> How to constitute the CC is obviously just one of the questions that will >> have to be worked through. How exactly the platform would operate and what >> the CC’s role and responsibilities would be also are very much TBD. One >> could imagine the CC overseeing the design of the platform; serving as as a >> facilitator of connections when someone proposes a project and solicits >> partners/support; facilitating the dissemination of progress reports; etc. >> But should it do more than this? It’s not clear that the CC should be >> deciding which project proposals can be appear on the platform; specifying >> a framework for their formulation and conduct; overseeing their progress, >> and so on. I guess it will be for the CC to figure these things out in >> consultation with the wider communities. >> >> One thing I’d be reluctant to see it get into is elaborating on the NM >> Statement's principles. I believe you raised this possibility at the >> August meeting at WEF as well, and am not clear what you have in mind. A >> priori, I’d think that if the NMI wandered onto this turf, it would raise >> the stakes and become politicized and potentially divisive. Better to >> stick to being an open platform for project facilitation and leave the >> discussion/negotiation of governance frameworks to other more inclusive >> forums/processes, no? >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> On Nov 6, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I attended the NETmundial phone conference this morning, interested to >> find out what had changed since the previous launch in August, which had >> drawn criticism not only from civil society but more broadly. >> >> The NETmundial Initiative is presented as not being a centralised >> organisation but rather a platform to support distributed governance of the >> Internet. It brings together "Enablers" (currently CGI.br, ICANN and >> WEF) and proposed "Solutions". The solutions can be contributed by anyone >> in crowdsourcing fashion, and can invite partnerships or calls for >> assistance. The focus of the Initiative is on mapping what already exists, >> and on developing solutions where there are gaps. >> >> There have been some changes since what was presented in August, mainly >> to de-emphasise the role of the WEF, which now notionally has its own >> separate but parallel Internet initiative. However WEF will continue to >> enjoy a permanent seat on the NETmundial Initiative's Coordination Council, >> and contrary to previous indications, the name of the initiative will not >> be changed to remove the reference to "NETmundial". This is because the >> NETmundial Principles are meant to be the foundation for the Initiative's >> work (I questioned whether this meant that those Principles are set in >> stone, and received an equivocal response that the Initiative might work on >> evolving them if someone proposed this.) >> >> The Coordination Council will contain 25 members, 5 of which are >> permanent seats for CGI.br , WEF, ICANN, >> the I* group, and the IGF MAG. Note: no permanent seat for civil >> society, except through CGI.br and the IGF. The other 20 members will >> be distributed across four stakeholder groups which are (1) academia, the >> technical community and foundations, (2) civil society, (3) governments and >> intergovernmental organisations, and (4) the private sector - and across >> all geographical regions. >> >> There was much emphasis on how "bottom up" this initiative is, which drew >> skeptical responses in the webconference chat room. Although they did >> invite the stakeholder groups to nominate their own representatives, >> ultimately ICANN, WEF and CGI.br together reserved the right to decide >> between them if too many nominations were received. (From civil society's >> point of view, we would aim, if we are to nominate candidates at all, to do >> so centrally through our IG Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) in >> order to avoid giving WEF that power.) >> >> Nominations are due within a month, so we really need to decide within a >> week whether we intend to participate at all, and if so, to proceed to a >> nomination process through the CSCG. >> >> -- >> 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 :: >> >> >> *********************************************** >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > Twitter: @afjellema > PGP: A84F061D > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC, 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 05:50:19 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 05:50:19 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [ITAC] PP-14 intervention metrics In-Reply-To: <545E4BE7.8060003@netmagic.com> References: <545E4BE7.8060003@netmagic.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tony Rutkowski Date: Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM Subject: [ITAC] PP-14 intervention metrics To: ITAC at lmlist.state.gov One of the more interesting benefits of a complete transcription record of meetings along with a structured format is is the ability to produce intervention metrics. The following table contains the intervention metrics for the 160 parties that spoke during any of the meetings of the Plenary, WGPL, and COM5. It provides an intervention total across those three committees and sorts in descending order of interventions. Anyone listening to all 3126 interventions probably deserves extra compensation for the due diligence and mental trauma. From an analytical perspective, it does provide some perspective on who shaped the conference through interventions (discounting those individual cases of extremely prolix behavior). From a tactical perspective, this also provides a subsequent ability to almost instantly see exactly what was said by whom about a particular subject - rather useful transparency. *Party* *Plenary* *WGPL* *COM5* *Total* CHAIRMAN Plenary 644 644 CHAIRMAN WGPL 537 537 CHAIRMAN COM5 433 433 IRAN 23 31 64 118 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 24 35 34 93 UNITED STATES 11 39 21 71 CANADA 4 28 19 51 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 18 8 24 50 BRAZIL 6 10 33 49 SAUDI ARABIA 25 15 9 49 SECRETARY-GENERAL 43 4 47 UNITED KINGDOM 10 22 14 46 ARGENTINA 10 18 12 40 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 5 31 2 38 EGYPT 2 18 10 30 SECRETARY OF THE PLENARY 29 29 AUSTRALIA 13 5 10 28 MALI 9 9 8 26 SWITZERLAND 22 1 3 26 CHINA 6 10 9 25 MEXICO 2 15 7 24 GUYANA 10 12 22 INDIA 6 15 1 22 JAPAN 3 16 3 22 LEBANON 22 22 UGANDA 7 9 5 21 SOUTH AFRICA 8 5 6 19 BAHRAIN 17 17 KENYA 3 2 12 17 NIGERIA 5 1 10 16 PHILIPPINES 6 10 16 INTERPRETER 14 14 SWEDEN 4 4 6 14 ZIMBABWE 4 8 2 14 ANNOUNCER 13 13 CUBA 1 11 12 INDONESIA 3 6 3 12 SENEGAL 2 8 2 12 CAMEROON 4 7 11 POLAND 7 4 11 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 2 6 2 10 KAZAKHSTAN 7 3 10 PARAGUAY 3 7 10 BAHAMAS 1 8 9 FRANCE 3 1 5 9 VIETNAM 1 7 1 9 ALGERIA 3 5 8 CÔTE D'IVOIRE 3 4 1 8 COLOMBIA 1 6 7 DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL 6 1 7 GERMANY 2 1 4 7 ITALY 2 5 7 NEW ZEALAND 4 3 7 TUNISIA 6 1 7 VICE CHAIRMAN 7 7 COMMITTEE 4 CHAIRMAN 6 6 GHANA 3 2 1 6 IRAQ 4 2 6 ISRAEL 4 2 6 NETHERLANDS 6 6 PAKISTAN 4 2 6 SUDAN 6 6 BELARUS 5 5 GABON 3 2 5 INTERPRETER 5 5 JAMAICA 4 1 5 MOROCCO 1 3 1 5 QATAR 2 3 5 TURKEY 4 1 5 BANGLADESH 4 4 BULGARIA 1 2 1 4 BURKINA FASO 3 1 4 INTERPRETER 4 4 MALAYSIA 2 2 4 SPAIN 3 1 4 ZAMBIA 3 1 4 BURUNDI 1 1 1 3 CHAD 3 3 COMMITTEE 3 CHAIRMAN 3 3 COSTA RICA 3 3 ITU 3 3 JORDAN 1 1 1 3 KUWAIT 3 3 KYRGYZSTAN 3 3 MALAWI 2 1 3 PALESTINE 3 3 PERU 2 1 3 RWANDA 2 1 3 SINGAPORE 1 1 1 3 VANUATU 3 3 ANNOUNCER 2 2 AZERBAIJAN 2 2 BHUTAN 2 2 BOTSWANA 2 2 COMMITTEE 5 CHAIRMAN 2 2 COMOROS 2 2 CONGO 1 1 2 DENMARK 2 2 GREECE 1 1 2 GRENADA 2 2 IRELAND 2 2 LITHUANIA 1 1 2 MAURITANIA 2 2 MOZAMBIQUE 2 2 NIGER 1 1 2 OMAN 2 2 PAPUA NEW GUINEA 1 1 2 SAMOA 2 2 SECRETARIAT 2 2 SECRETARIAT 2 2 SECRETARY OF WGPL 2 2 SOUTH SUDAN 1 1 2 TANZANIA 2 2 THAILAND 2 2 UKRAINE 2 2 UZBEKISTAN 2 2 VENEZUELA 2 2 AFGHANISTAN 1 1 ANGOLA 1 1 ANNOUNCER 1 1 APT 1 1 BARBADOS 1 1 BENIN 1 1 BOLIVIA 1 1 BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA 1 1 BRUNEI DARUSSALAM 1 1 CAMBODIA 1 1 CHILE 1 1 CYPRUS 1 1 CZECH REPUBLIC 1 1 DIRECTOR BR 1 1 DJIBOUTI 1 1 EQUATORIAL GUINEA 1 1 ETHIOPIA 1 1 GEORGIA 1 1 GUATEMALA 1 1 GUINEA-BISSAU 1 1 HAITI 1 1 HUNGARY 1 1 ICAO 1 1 LAOS 1 1 MACEDONIA 1 1 MONGOLIA 1 1 MYANMAR 1 1 NAMIBIA 1 1 NARRATOR 1 1 NEPAL 1 1 RADIO REGULATION BOARD 1 1 ROMANIA 1 1 SAINT LUCIA 1 1 SIERRA LEONE 1 1 SOMALIA 1 1 SRI LANKA 1 1 SUDAN 1 1 SURINAME 1 1 SWAZILAND 1 1 URUGUAY 1 1 VATICAN CITY STATE 1 1 YEMEN 1 1 TOTALS 1222 1048 856 3126 -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 06:01:07 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 06:01:07 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [ITAC] Index to the Declarations In-Reply-To: <545CC9B4.7080005@netmagic.com> References: <1495347475.553708.1415137058634.JavaMail.yahoo@jws10667.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <545CC9B4.7080005@netmagic.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tony Rutkowski Date: Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 8:31 AM Subject: [ITAC] Index to the Declarations To: ITAC at lmlist.state.gov The following is an index to all the submitted Declarations (PP-14 documents C-167 and C-168) and sorted by Member name. All 193 Members are included irrespective of whether they signed the Final Acts. There is no apparent list of Member States that signed the Final Acts. However, there were a total of 109 Declarations entered by 119 Member States. 66 States entered Declarations for themselves alone; 53 entered joint reservations. Denmark had the largest number - 9. The ITRs were explicitly mentioned in Declarations 61 (Cuba), 98 (UK), 102 (Czech & Slovak Republics), 102 (Denmark, Norway, Finland), 108 (Bulgaria), 109 (Romania). Afghanistan Albania Algeria 49, 81 Andorra Angola 19 Antigua and Barbuda Argentine Republic 1 Armenia 64 Australia Austria 37, 38, 85, 95, 105 Azerbaijan 64 Bahamas Bahrain 49, 55 Bangladesh Barbados 26 Belarus Belgium 37, 38, 27, 95, 105 Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana 68 Brazil Brunei Darussalam 80 Bulgaria 37, 38, 95, 108 Burkina Faso 16 Burundi 104 Cabo Verde Cambodia 106 Cameroon 52 Canada 60, 93, 107 Central African Republic Chad 99 Chile 69 China 20 Colombia 5 Comoros Congo (Rep) Costa Rica 43 Côte d'Ivoire 74 Croatia 37, 38, 85, 95 Cuba 61 Cyprus 37, 38, 95 Czech Republic 37, 38, 85, 101, 105 Dem. People's Rep. Korea Dem. Rep. of the Congo Denmark 37, 38, 82, 83, 84, 85, 95, 102, 105 Djibouti 3 Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt 56 El Salvador 4 Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia 37, 38, 85, 95, 105, 107 Ethiopia 72 Fiji Finland 37, 38, 85, 95, 102 France 37, 38, 39, 95 Gabonese Republic 24 Gambia Georgia 2 Germany 37, 38, 42, 95, 105 Ghana 36 Greece 37, 38, 85, 95 Grenada Guatemala 23 Guinea 75 Guinea-Bissau Guyana 58 Haiti 89 Honduras Hungary 37, 38, 85, 28, 95, 105 Iceland 38, 79, 95 India 53 Indonesia 21 Iran 49, 66 Iraq 49, 92 Ireland 37, 38, 85 Israel 91, 96 Italy 37, 38, 95 Jamaica 50 Japan 95, 105 Jordan 54 Kazakhstan 64 Kenya 45 Kiribati Korea, South 41 Kuwait 49, 86 Kyrgyz Republic 64 Lao People's Dem. Rep. Latvia 37, 38, 95, 105 Lebanon 49 Lesotho 9 Liberia Libya Liechtenstein 38, 85, 79, 95 Lithuania 37, 38, 85, 95, 105, 107 Luxembourg 37, 38, 95, 105 Madagascar Malawi 40 Malaysia 8, 49 Maldives Mali 17 Malta 37, 38, 95 Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico 65 Micronesia Moldova 85, 73, 107 Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco 49, 33 Mozambique Myanmar Namibia 10 Nauru Nepal Netherlands 37, 38, 82, 83, 84, 85, 95, 105 New Zealand 62, 85, 95 Nicaragua Niger 18 Nigeria 35 Norway 38, 79, 84, 85, 95, 102 Oman 49, 57 Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea 51 Paraguay 29 Peru Philippines 31 Poland 37, 38, 82, 83, 84, 95, 105, 107 Portugal 37, 38, 95 Qatar 46, 49 Romania 37, 38, 82, 83, 84, 85, 95, 107 Russian Federation 64, 100 Rwanda 30 Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino 6 Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia 47, 49 Senegal 87 Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore 11 Slovak Republic 37, 38, 85, 95, 101, 105 Slovenia 37, 38, 95, 105, 107 Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Sudan 90 Spain 37, 38, 48, 95 Sri Lanka 14 Sudan 34, 49 Suriname 22 Swaziland Sweden 37, 38, 82, 83, 84, 85, 95, 105 Switzerland 38, 95 Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Tanzania 15 Thailand 13 The...Macedonia Timor-Leste Togolese Republic 12 Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia 49, 59 Turkey 38, 44, 85, 95 Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda 32 Ukraine 76 United Arab Emirates 49, 70 United Kingdom 37, 38, 85, 95, 97, 98, 105, 107 United States 63, 95, 103, 105, 107 Uruguay 7 Uzbekistan 64 Vanuatu 71 Vatican City State 78 Venezuela Viet Nam 94 Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe 88 -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 06:43:47 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 12:43:47 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [ITAC] PP-14 intervention metrics In-Reply-To: References: <545E4BE7.8060003@netmagic.com> Message-ID: Thanks for sharing this. I have not been to any ITU gathering before but I can imagine not all of the interventions got passed. Any possibility of such metrics being included? (Or perhaps it's available somewhere?) Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 Nov 2014 11:50, "Carolina Rossini" wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tony Rutkowski > Date: Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM > Subject: [ITAC] PP-14 intervention metrics > To: ITAC at lmlist.state.gov > > > One of the more interesting benefits of > a complete transcription record of meetings > along with a structured format is is the ability > to produce intervention metrics. > > The following table contains the intervention > metrics for the 160 parties that spoke during > any of the meetings of the Plenary, WGPL, and > COM5. It provides an intervention total across > those three committees and sorts in descending > order of interventions. Anyone listening to all > 3126 interventions probably deserves extra > compensation for the due diligence and mental > trauma. > > From an analytical perspective, it does provide > some perspective on who shaped the conference > through interventions (discounting those individual > cases of extremely prolix behavior). From a tactical > perspective, this also provides a subsequent ability > to almost instantly see exactly what was said by whom > about a particular subject - rather useful transparency. > > *Party* *Plenary* *WGPL* *COM5* *Total* CHAIRMAN Plenary 644 > > 644 CHAIRMAN WGPL > 537 > 537 CHAIRMAN COM5 > > 433 433 IRAN 23 31 64 118 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 24 35 34 93 UNITED STATES > 11 39 21 71 CANADA 4 28 19 51 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 18 8 24 50 BRAZIL 6 > 10 33 49 SAUDI ARABIA 25 15 9 49 SECRETARY-GENERAL 43 4 > 47 UNITED KINGDOM 10 22 14 46 ARGENTINA 10 18 12 40 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF > 5 31 2 38 EGYPT 2 18 10 30 SECRETARY OF THE PLENARY 29 > > 29 AUSTRALIA 13 5 10 28 MALI 9 9 8 26 SWITZERLAND 22 1 3 26 CHINA 6 > 10 9 25 MEXICO 2 15 7 24 GUYANA 10 12 > 22 INDIA 6 15 1 22 JAPAN 3 16 3 22 LEBANON 22 > > 22 UGANDA 7 9 5 21 SOUTH AFRICA 8 5 6 19 BAHRAIN 17 > > 17 KENYA 3 2 12 17 NIGERIA 5 1 10 16 PHILIPPINES 6 > 10 16 INTERPRETER > 14 > 14 SWEDEN 4 4 6 14 ZIMBABWE 4 8 2 14 ANNOUNCER 13 > > 13 CUBA 1 11 > 12 INDONESIA 3 6 3 12 SENEGAL 2 8 2 12 CAMEROON 4 > 7 11 POLAND 7 4 > 11 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 2 6 2 10 KAZAKHSTAN 7 > 3 10 PARAGUAY 3 7 > 10 BAHAMAS 1 8 > 9 FRANCE 3 1 5 9 VIETNAM 1 7 1 9 ALGERIA 3 5 > 8 CÔTE D'IVOIRE 3 4 1 8 COLOMBIA 1 > 6 7 DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL 6 1 > 7 GERMANY 2 1 4 7 ITALY 2 5 > 7 NEW ZEALAND > 4 3 7 TUNISIA 6 > 1 7 VICE CHAIRMAN > > 7 7 COMMITTEE 4 CHAIRMAN 6 > > 6 GHANA 3 2 1 6 IRAQ 4 2 > 6 ISRAEL 4 2 > 6 NETHERLANDS > > 6 6 PAKISTAN 4 > 2 6 SUDAN > 6 > 6 BELARUS > 5 > 5 GABON 3 2 > 5 INTERPRETER 5 > > 5 JAMAICA 4 1 > 5 MOROCCO 1 3 1 5 QATAR 2 > 3 5 TURKEY 4 1 > 5 BANGLADESH 4 > > 4 BULGARIA 1 2 1 4 BURKINA FASO 3 > 1 4 INTERPRETER > > 4 4 MALAYSIA 2 > 2 4 SPAIN 3 > 1 4 ZAMBIA 3 > 1 4 BURUNDI 1 1 1 3 CHAD 3 > > 3 COMMITTEE 3 CHAIRMAN 3 > > 3 COSTA RICA 3 > > 3 ITU > > 3 3 JORDAN 1 1 1 3 KUWAIT 3 > > 3 KYRGYZSTAN 3 > > 3 MALAWI 2 1 > 3 PALESTINE 3 > > 3 PERU 2 > 1 3 RWANDA 2 1 > 3 SINGAPORE 1 1 1 3 VANUATU 3 > > 3 ANNOUNCER > 2 > 2 AZERBAIJAN 2 > > 2 BHUTAN 2 > > 2 BOTSWANA 2 > > 2 COMMITTEE 5 CHAIRMAN 2 > > 2 COMOROS 2 > > 2 CONGO 1 1 > 2 DENMARK > > 2 2 GREECE 1 1 > 2 GRENADA 2 > > 2 IRELAND > > 2 2 LITHUANIA 1 1 > 2 MAURITANIA 2 > > 2 MOZAMBIQUE 2 > > 2 NIGER 1 > 1 2 OMAN 2 > > 2 PAPUA NEW GUINEA 1 > 1 2 SAMOA 2 > > 2 SECRETARIAT > 2 > 2 SECRETARIAT > > 2 2 SECRETARY OF WGPL > 2 > 2 SOUTH SUDAN 1 1 > 2 TANZANIA 2 > > 2 THAILAND 2 > > 2 UKRAINE 2 > > 2 UZBEKISTAN > 2 > 2 VENEZUELA > 2 > 2 AFGHANISTAN 1 > > 1 ANGOLA 1 > > 1 ANNOUNCER > > 1 1 APT 1 > > 1 BARBADOS 1 > > 1 BENIN > 1 > 1 BOLIVIA 1 > > 1 BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA 1 > > 1 BRUNEI DARUSSALAM 1 > > 1 CAMBODIA 1 > > 1 CHILE 1 > > 1 CYPRUS 1 > > 1 CZECH REPUBLIC > > 1 1 DIRECTOR BR > > 1 1 DJIBOUTI 1 > > 1 EQUATORIAL GUINEA 1 > > 1 ETHIOPIA 1 > > 1 GEORGIA 1 > > 1 GUATEMALA 1 > > 1 GUINEA-BISSAU 1 > > 1 HAITI 1 > > 1 HUNGARY 1 > > 1 ICAO > > 1 1 LAOS 1 > > 1 MACEDONIA 1 > > 1 MONGOLIA 1 > > 1 MYANMAR 1 > > 1 NAMIBIA 1 > > 1 NARRATOR 1 > > 1 NEPAL 1 > > 1 RADIO REGULATION BOARD > > 1 1 ROMANIA 1 > > 1 SAINT LUCIA 1 > > 1 SIERRA LEONE > 1 > 1 SOMALIA 1 > > 1 SRI LANKA 1 > > 1 SUDAN 1 > > 1 SURINAME 1 > > 1 SWAZILAND 1 > > 1 URUGUAY > 1 > 1 VATICAN CITY STATE > > 1 1 YEMEN 1 > > 1 TOTALS 1222 1048 856 3126 > > > > -- > -- > *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: From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 03:57:09 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:57:09 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <639BB22E-1E89-4E72-8047-7140CA3B4E72@difference.com.au> On 25 Oct 2014, at 8:51 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > Well first of all by definition “those who contribute” are “self-selected”… they chose to contribute and were not selected by others such as organizations, community groups, nation states or whoever to contribute on their behalf… The ability to self-select does not imply that participants are not representative of anyone. For example I usually participate in ICANN and IGF processes as a representative of an organisation with several hundred dues paying members, and must from time to time face re-election. But in a sense I am still self-selected, as I could still participate as an individual if I wished, and I participate as a volunteer not an employee. > Demographically etc. they practically are an “elite” in that they are part of that extremely small sub-set of possible contributors who have the skills, knowledge, resources (including time/money) to contribute where others who might have a concern or might be impacted do not have sufficient skills, knowledge, resources etc. … But using the term 'self-selected elite' pejoratively becomes nonsensical iff you use it this broadly. Are you literally arguing that it is desirable for those who lack the skills and knowledge and resources to *directly* participate in policy processes? And even if we lower the barriers to entry, unless we lower them to practically zero, those who fully participate will always be somewhat of an elite in that sense. If we take ICANN for example, it is unlikely that we will get to the point at which a majority of the worlds population are even able to explain why the domain name system is. Now, we can all agree that it is a good thing if the interests of those who lack the skills, knowledge and resources to participate in policy processes are represented, and surely civil society participation aids that goal. And we can all agree that lowering the barriers to participation so that full participation is not restricted to those able to find funding from somewhere for travel if needed, requiring fluent English, sometimes requiring understanding of fairly complex communication tools, etc. But if we use 'elite' so broadly that it includes anyone able to find the time to understand the issues and spend time participating, then directly participating in policy processes will always be restricted to an elite, and using the term pejoratively is nonsensical. Regards David > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:25 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen'; michael gurstein > Cc: 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 > > How does 'those who contribute' equate to a self selected elite? > > On 24 October 2014 5:59:09 pm "michael gurstein" 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. Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. > > 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 > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen 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 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. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein 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: > 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: -------------- 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: From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 08:04:11 2014 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 09:04:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [ITAC] PP-14 intervention metrics In-Reply-To: References: <545E4BE7.8060003@netmagic.com> Message-ID: <20141109130411.5857426.81378.83006@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 08:29:57 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 14:29:57 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [ITAC] PP-14 intervention metrics In-Reply-To: <20141109130411.5857426.81378.83006@gmail.com> References: <545E4BE7.8060003@netmagic.com> <20141109130411.5857426.81378.83006@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Tracy, Thanks for the clarification... will look forward to the update. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 Nov 2014 14:04, "Tracy Hackshaw @ Google" wrote: > ‎Seun, > > An "intervention" at an ITU meeting does not *necessarily* equate to > something that requires "passing". ‎ > > I believe the Internet Society has been tracking the final status of the > various proposals closely via a publicly available "matrix" on their > website and will likely post an ‎update shortly now that the meeting has > ended. > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > Sent from BlackBerry Q10 > *From: *Seun Ojedeji > *Sent: *Sunday, November 9, 2014 7:44 AM > *To: *Carolina Rossini > *Reply To: *Seun Ojedeji > *Cc: * > *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [ITAC] PP-14 intervention metrics > > Thanks for sharing this. I have not been to any ITU gathering before but I > can imagine not all of the interventions got passed. Any possibility of > such metrics being included? (Or perhaps it's available somewhere?) > > Cheers! > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 9 Nov 2014 11:50, "Carolina Rossini" > wrote: > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Tony Rutkowski >> Date: Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM >> Subject: [ITAC] PP-14 intervention metrics >> To: ITAC at lmlist.state.gov >> >> >> One of the more interesting benefits of >> a complete transcription record of meetings >> along with a structured format is is the ability >> to produce intervention metrics. >> >> The following table contains the intervention >> metrics for the 160 parties that spoke during >> any of the meetings of the Plenary, WGPL, and >> COM5. It provides an intervention total across >> those three committees and sorts in descending >> order of interventions. Anyone listening to all >> 3126 interventions probably deserves extra >> compensation for the due diligence and mental >> trauma. >> >> From an analytical perspective, it does provide >> some perspective on who shaped the conference >> through interventions (discounting those individual >> cases of extremely prolix behavior). From a tactical >> perspective, this also provides a subsequent ability >> to almost instantly see exactly what was said by whom >> about a particular subject - rather useful transparency. >> >> *Party* *Plenary* *WGPL* *COM5* *Total* CHAIRMAN Plenary 644 >> >> 644 CHAIRMAN WGPL >> 537 >> 537 CHAIRMAN COM5 >> >> 433 433 IRAN 23 31 64 118 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 24 35 34 93 UNITED >> STATES 11 39 21 71 CANADA 4 28 19 51 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 18 8 24 50 >> BRAZIL 6 10 33 49 SAUDI ARABIA 25 15 9 49 SECRETARY-GENERAL 43 4 >> 47 UNITED KINGDOM 10 22 14 46 ARGENTINA 10 18 12 40 KOREA, REPUBLIC >> OF 5 31 2 38 EGYPT 2 18 10 30 SECRETARY OF THE PLENARY 29 >> >> 29 AUSTRALIA 13 5 10 28 MALI 9 9 8 26 SWITZERLAND 22 1 3 26 CHINA 6 >> 10 9 25 MEXICO 2 15 7 24 GUYANA 10 12 >> 22 INDIA 6 15 1 22 JAPAN 3 16 3 22 LEBANON 22 >> >> 22 UGANDA 7 9 5 21 SOUTH AFRICA 8 5 6 19 BAHRAIN 17 >> >> 17 KENYA 3 2 12 17 NIGERIA 5 1 10 16 PHILIPPINES 6 >> 10 16 INTERPRETER >> 14 >> 14 SWEDEN 4 4 6 14 ZIMBABWE 4 8 2 14 ANNOUNCER 13 >> >> 13 CUBA 1 11 >> 12 INDONESIA 3 6 3 12 SENEGAL 2 8 2 12 CAMEROON 4 >> 7 11 POLAND 7 4 >> 11 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 2 6 2 10 KAZAKHSTAN 7 >> 3 10 PARAGUAY 3 7 >> 10 BAHAMAS 1 8 >> 9 FRANCE 3 1 5 9 VIETNAM 1 7 1 9 ALGERIA 3 5 >> 8 CÔTE D'IVOIRE 3 4 1 8 COLOMBIA 1 >> 6 7 DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL 6 1 >> 7 GERMANY 2 1 4 7 ITALY 2 5 >> 7 NEW ZEALAND >> 4 3 7 TUNISIA 6 >> 1 7 VICE CHAIRMAN >> >> 7 7 COMMITTEE 4 CHAIRMAN 6 >> >> 6 GHANA 3 2 1 6 IRAQ 4 2 >> 6 ISRAEL 4 2 >> 6 NETHERLANDS >> >> 6 6 PAKISTAN 4 >> 2 6 SUDAN >> 6 >> 6 BELARUS >> 5 >> 5 GABON 3 2 >> 5 INTERPRETER 5 >> >> 5 JAMAICA 4 1 >> 5 MOROCCO 1 3 1 5 QATAR 2 >> 3 5 TURKEY 4 1 >> 5 BANGLADESH 4 >> >> 4 BULGARIA 1 2 1 4 BURKINA FASO 3 >> 1 4 INTERPRETER >> >> 4 4 MALAYSIA 2 >> 2 4 SPAIN 3 >> 1 4 ZAMBIA 3 >> 1 4 BURUNDI 1 1 1 3 CHAD 3 >> >> 3 COMMITTEE 3 CHAIRMAN 3 >> >> 3 COSTA RICA 3 >> >> 3 ITU >> >> 3 3 JORDAN 1 1 1 3 KUWAIT 3 >> >> 3 KYRGYZSTAN 3 >> >> 3 MALAWI 2 1 >> 3 PALESTINE 3 >> >> 3 PERU 2 >> 1 3 RWANDA 2 1 >> 3 SINGAPORE 1 1 1 3 VANUATU 3 >> >> 3 ANNOUNCER >> 2 >> 2 AZERBAIJAN 2 >> >> 2 BHUTAN 2 >> >> 2 BOTSWANA 2 >> >> 2 COMMITTEE 5 CHAIRMAN 2 >> >> 2 COMOROS 2 >> >> 2 CONGO 1 1 >> 2 DENMARK >> >> 2 2 GREECE 1 1 >> 2 GRENADA 2 >> >> 2 IRELAND >> >> 2 2 LITHUANIA 1 1 >> 2 MAURITANIA 2 >> >> 2 MOZAMBIQUE 2 >> >> 2 NIGER 1 >> 1 2 OMAN 2 >> >> 2 PAPUA NEW GUINEA 1 >> 1 2 SAMOA 2 >> >> 2 SECRETARIAT >> 2 >> 2 SECRETARIAT >> >> 2 2 SECRETARY OF WGPL >> 2 >> 2 SOUTH SUDAN 1 1 >> 2 TANZANIA 2 >> >> 2 THAILAND 2 >> >> 2 UKRAINE 2 >> >> 2 UZBEKISTAN >> 2 >> 2 VENEZUELA >> 2 >> 2 AFGHANISTAN 1 >> >> 1 ANGOLA 1 >> >> 1 ANNOUNCER >> >> 1 1 APT 1 >> >> 1 BARBADOS 1 >> >> 1 BENIN >> 1 >> 1 BOLIVIA 1 >> >> 1 BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA 1 >> >> 1 BRUNEI DARUSSALAM 1 >> >> 1 CAMBODIA 1 >> >> 1 CHILE 1 >> >> 1 CYPRUS 1 >> >> 1 CZECH REPUBLIC >> >> 1 1 DIRECTOR BR >> >> 1 1 DJIBOUTI 1 >> >> 1 EQUATORIAL GUINEA 1 >> >> 1 ETHIOPIA 1 >> >> 1 GEORGIA 1 >> >> 1 GUATEMALA 1 >> >> 1 GUINEA-BISSAU 1 >> >> 1 HAITI 1 >> >> 1 HUNGARY 1 >> >> 1 ICAO >> >> 1 1 LAOS 1 >> >> 1 MACEDONIA 1 >> >> 1 MONGOLIA 1 >> >> 1 MYANMAR 1 >> >> 1 NAMIBIA 1 >> >> 1 NARRATOR 1 >> >> 1 NEPAL 1 >> >> 1 RADIO REGULATION BOARD >> >> 1 1 ROMANIA 1 >> >> 1 SAINT LUCIA 1 >> >> 1 SIERRA LEONE >> 1 >> 1 SOMALIA 1 >> >> 1 SRI LANKA 1 >> >> 1 SUDAN 1 >> >> 1 SURINAME 1 >> >> 1 SWAZILAND 1 >> >> 1 URUGUAY >> 1 >> 1 VATICAN CITY STATE >> >> 1 1 YEMEN 1 >> >> 1 TOTALS 1222 1048 856 3126 >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> *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 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 09:39:23 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 09:39:23 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [ITAC] PP-14 final delegate metrics In-Reply-To: <545F735B.2010607@netmagic.com> References: <545F735B.2010607@netmagic.com> Message-ID: Wow ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Tony Rutkowski" Date: Nov 9, 2014 9:00 AM Subject: [ITAC] PP-14 final delegate metrics To: Cc: Here you can see the progression of each delegation size and rampup, as well as a comparison between announced size and actual sizes during the conference. Sort order is by final size. If one does some rough assumptions on travel and support costs for the event and everyone attending, it comes to about $10 million, or $200,000 per resolution. *Member* *23 Oct announced* *23 Oct present* *28 Oct present* *7 Nov present* Korea, South 339 179 201 221 United States 164 101 125 133 Nigeria 158 76 111 128 China 77 57 65 68 Indonesia 68 35 48 57 Japan 53 40 48 50 Bangladesh 54 32 38 44 Russian Federation 46 39 42 44 Côte d'Ivoire 42 37 39 39 South Africa 47 29 35 39 United Arab Emirates 49 32 38 38 Thailand 36 28 33 34 Zambia 53 30 32 34 Ghana 39 24 30 33 United Kingdom 33 18 29 33 Malaysia 28 21 27 28 Senegal 33 15 17 27 Kenya 32 26 26 26 Algeria 30 15 17 25 Mauritania 36 25 25 25 Brazil 30 10 17 24 Philippines 36 15 22 24 Tanzania 27 22 22 24 Kazakhstan 44 19 21 23 Poland 25 23 23 23 Angola 22 22 22 22 India 34 14 20 22 Turkey 23 17 21 22 Uganda 24 20 20 21 Iraq 27 16 19 20 Mexico 40 16 19 20 Mongolia 25 16 17 20 Sweden 26 13 18 20 Cameroon 23 16 19 19 Sri Lanka 19 15 18 19 Tunisia 24 17 18 19 Viet Nam 16 14 15 19 Burkina Faso 17 17 17 17 Canada 18 12 17 17 Germany 19 9 10 17 Hungary 19 15 16 17 France 17 11 14 16 Morocco 16 11 16 16 Saudi Arabia 16 16 16 16 Mozambique 15 6 10 15 Oman 15 10 13 15 Rwanda 14 13 15 15 Zimbabwe 20 13 13 15 Romania 14 13 13 14 Sudan 17 7 12 14 Argentine Republic 14 12 13 13 Israel 20 8 11 13 Kyrgyz Republic 18 12 13 13 Nepal 13 7 7 13 Pakistan 16 13 13 13 Kuwait 13 12 12 12 Lebanon 15 11 11 12 Norway 12 6 9 12 Switzerland 14 10 11 12 Ukraine 13 8 11 12 Egypt 16 6 9 11 Mali 12 11 11 11 Niger 12 9 9 11 Paraguay 11 8 10 11 Australia 10 8 8 10 Azerbaijan 18 10 10 10 Dem. Rep. of the Congo 15 6 8 10 Gabonese Republic 23 9 9 10 Papua New Guinea 13 9 10 10 Qatar 14 7 9 10 Burundi 12 9 9 9 Cambodia 9 8 8 9 Czech Republic 11 5 6 9 Djibouti 12 9 9 9 Singapore 9 5 8 9 South Sudan 10 9 9 9 Swaziland 11 9 9 9 Belgium 8 4 4 8 Botswana 10 7 8 8 Brunei Darussalam 8 7 7 8 Cuba 8 7 8 8 Iran 7 7 7 8 Italy 12 6 6 8 Namibia 9 8 8 8 Somalia 8 5 6 8 Spain 14 5 6 8 Uzbekistan 9 3 3 8 Bahrain 10 7 7 7 Bulgaria 7 6 6 7 Chad 8 7 7 7 Comoros 7 7 7 7 Costa Rica 7 5 6 7 Ethiopia 11 1 7 7 Lesotho 9 7 7 7 Myanmar 7 7 7 7 Togolese Republic 10 2 5 7 Bahamas 6 5 6 6 Denmark 7 5 5 6 Finland 6 2 3 6 Georgia 6 5 6 6 Jamaica 6 5 6 6 New Zealand 6 3 6 6 The...Macedonia 5 2 3 6 Uruguay 7 4 4 6 Venezuela 10 6 6 6 Afghanistan 7 5 5 5 Belarus 5 4 5 5 Croatia 5 1 3 5 Lao People's Dem. Rep. 5 4 4 5 Latvia 8 3 4 5 Malawi 5 5 5 5 Netherlands 5 4 5 5 Peru 6 2 3 5 Timor-Leste 5 5 5 5 Armenia 10 2 2 4 Austria 4 4 4 4 Bhutan 5 4 4 4 Chile 4 2 3 4 Dominican Republic 6 4 4 4 Estonia 4 2 3 4 Greece 4 1 2 4 Grenada 4 3 4 4 Guinea-Bissau 6 4 4 4 Jordan 5 2 4 4 Lithuania 4 3 3 4 Maldives 4 3 4 4 Moldova 4 2 3 4 Portugal 4 3 4 4 Slovenia 4 2 2 4 Suriname 4 4 4 4 Vatican City State 4 4 4 4 Benin 7 3 3 3 Bolivia 3 3 3 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 3 3 3 Congo (Rep) 7 3 3 3 Cyprus 3 2 3 3 Ecuador 3 2 2 3 Equatorial Guinea 7 3 3 3 Guatemala 3 3 3 3 Haiti 5 3 3 3 Liechtenstein 3 2 3 3 Nicaragua 8 3 3 3 Sierra Leone 11 1 3 3 Slovak Republic 3 2 1 3 Turkmenistan 3 1 3 3 Vanuatu 3 3 3 3 Yemen 6 2 3 3 Albania 4 2 2 2 Andorra 2 2 2 2 Barbados 2 2 2 2 Cabo Verde 2 1 2 2 Central African Republic 5 0 2 2 El Salvador 3 2 2 2 Fiji 3 2 2 2 Luxembourg 2 2 2 2 Panama 3 2 2 2 Samoa 2 2 2 2 San Marino 2 1 1 2 Serbia 2 2 2 2 Tajikistan 11 2 2 2 Colombia 2 1 1 1 Guyana 1 1 1 1 Ireland 1 1 1 1 Madagascar 3 1 1 1 Mauritius 1 1 1 1 Monaco 1 1 1 1 Montenegro 1 1 1 1 Saint Lucia 2 1 1 1 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 0 1 1 Seychelles 1 1 1 1 Tonga 1 1 1 1 Antigua and Barbuda 0 0 0 0 Belize 0 0 0 0 Dem. People's Rep. Korea 0 0 0 0 Dominica 0 0 0 0 Eritrea 1 0 0 0 Gambia 17 0 0 0 Guinea 0 0 0 0 Honduras 0 0 0 0 Iceland 0 0 0 0 Kiribati 0 0 0 0 Liberia 6 0 0 0 Libya 0 0 0 0 Malta 0 0 0 0 Marshall Islands 0 0 0 0 Micronesia 3 0 0 0 Nauru 0 0 0 0 Saint Kitts and Nevis 0 0 0 0 Sao Tome and Principe 0 0 0 0 Solomon Islands 0 0 0 0 Syrian Arab Republic 0 0 0 0 Trinidad and Tobago 9 0 0 0 Tuvalu 2 0 0 0 TOTAL 2997 1831 2146 2378 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 11:10:37 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:10:37 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Comments to FCC on NN in the Info Society Context Message-ID: See text with internal links here: http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/2014/11/09/nn-in-wsis-context/ November 8, 2014 c/o Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Comments on Network Neutrality in the Context of the International Information Society Project Dear Commissioners: In the following open letter, filed ex parte in the FCC's Open Internet proceeding and addressed to the global Internet community, we address the issue of network neutrality in relation to the international Information Society project. By addressing this relationship, we hope to amplify our call for the FCC to support the policy environment that originally gave us the open and neutral Internet. This was the policy environment that existed in the US until just prior to the Information Society project. Our chief concerns are for elements of the Information Society project's underlying design which support vertically integrated telecommunications environments, without clearly providing for policy environments that support open and competitive access by independent providers at the physical layer, and for the project's effects on the universal general purpose interoperability of the Internet as we know it. The Internet's design to support general purpose interoperability among autonomous networks in the network of networks is the original basis for the neutrality of the Internet, and competitive access at the physical layer is the policy environment that originally established the network of independent and interoperating networks that gave us the open Internet. The FCC's overall approach to telecommunications policy over the last decade based on vertical integration, and recent FCC initiatives such as the IP transition, reflect these areas of concern in the Information Society project, and US State Department initiatives also intersect with the Information Society project's system of international decisions enacted within the UN system and other international agencies. Network Neutrality and Vertical Integration In his recent viral commentary, John Oliver describes network neutrality as the reason why the Internet is "a weirdly level playing field." This result may be produced in a couple of different ways, based on two conceptions of network neutrality. Network neutrality can denote either 1) the application of a rule requiring networks to treat packets equally within themselves; or 2) the technical principle whereby interoperability among autonomous networks is enabled by transmitting packets between them without regard for application. Renewed concerns for network neutrality in the first sense have arisen in the US and globally in response to the FCC's plan to make provisions for fast lanes in its Open Internet policy, and in the wake of Comcast's and Verizon's recent moves to initiate interconnection deals directly with the edge application provider Netflix rather than accepting the data their users request from Netflix via backbone intermediaries. We note that these developments reflect the circumstances of the present policy approach in the United States, which is characterized by a few incumbent network providers who have been allowed to treat physical infrastructure as assets nearly solely under their private control (i.e., the physical infrastructure is "vertically integrated,” treated as a supply that has been acquired as part of a private production process). In this environment, network neutrality cannot help but be approached in the first sense, as a rule addressing paid prioritization, to be imposed within the networks of a few dominant providers that exercise a controlling role in the telecommunications space, rather than in the second sense, as the kind of policy relevant to a network of autonomous, competing networks. In point of fact, however, the Internet was originally unleashed in the United States under a policy approach that assured competition at the physical layer, creating an environment that enabled thousands of independent network providers to readily enter the network of networks and interoperate among themselves, in accordance with network neutrality in the second sense. The Internet was designed to solve the problem that arose in this context, of how to interoperate among numerous autonomous networks, and this was the original basis of the openness of the Internet. The policy approach that enabled this dynamic to arise was the official position of the US at least until 2000, when the FCC recommended open access as the policy that would best support the Internet in Europe (see FCC Press Release, United States Urges EU to Continue Progress in Opening Communications Market To Competition, 2000 FCC LEXIS 1383 (2000), available at: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/News_Releases/2000/nrin0005.doc). However, roughly concurrently with the beginning of the Information Society project – which might be designated by the 2003 Geneva and 2005 Tunis World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) events – the FCC has implemented a federal telecommunications policy that not only deregulates Internet information services, but also the physical infrastructure carrying telecommunications data. This enables the incumbents to treat the infrastructure as one would a private asset in any other type of market, and thereby neutralizes the legal foundations of the Communications Act in public franchise law and common carrier obligations, which up until then had assured competitive access to right of way infrastructure by independent Internet providers. For whatever reason, the underlying premises of the Information Society project currently reflect this change in the policy environment which we have seen in the US. The ITU's definitions for the performance measures used to measure the progress of the Information Society draw no distinction between individual networks that may implement specialized services through more specialized treatment of packets within themselves, and open Internet connectivity, constituted of a network of autonomous network providers interoperating among themselves. The measures are based on telecommunications industry categories as defined in the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), Rev. 4, which reference the Internet solely in relation to a vertically integrated context (“provision of Internet access by the operator of the wired infrastructure”) and not in relation to shared physical infrastructure (“purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of networks and providing telecommunications services using this capacity”). Current FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler appears to advocate an approach to policy consistent with vertical integration, and with the framework articulated by Joseph Farrell and Philip J. Weiser in 2003, wherein the efficiency advantage of a vertically integrated network platform is weighed against impacts that the platform provider's practices may have on application markets dependent on their platform. In Ensuring an Open Internet Now and for the Future, Wheeler states that there are likely to be a few broadband networks serving to support essential services for society, and that this condition means they are likely to exercise market power. He characterizes net neutrality in terms of balancing concerns of producers and consumers within this type of context, such as that network operators may make moves that undermine the value of the network, or that regulation by the FCC might cause economic harm to network operators or inhibit their ability to offer improved service. Network Neutrality and Universal General Purpose Interoperability Conformance and Interoperability: The neutrality of the Internet's design is based on the way it supports a maximally flexible platform between and across independent networks. Its neutrality is sustained by the need to interoperate across autonomous networks and to connect end users in whatever they may be doing. With its Conformance and Interoperability program, the US and the Information Society project are effectively pursuing a conception of interoperability that may supplant this notion of universal general purpose interoperability – which the Internet is already designed to support – replacing it with a notion of interoperability as conformance with policy. This program is a key part of the intergovernmentally-endorsed program of action issued by the ITU at the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference, now being updated at the 2014 Conference, and is geared to support the WTO's Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBTA). The TBTA aims at ensuring that technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. It encourages Member States to base these matters on international standards and develop conformity assessment procedures to generate confidence that products conform with applicable technical regulations or standards. Among our concerns here is the fact that Conformance and Interoperability testing might become a basis for enabling government or privileged providers to promote new types of networks by appealing to intergovernmental standards, without distinguishing them from the way the Internet operates or recognizing the tradeoffs these types of networks bring as compared to open internetworking between independent networks. We see the Conformance and Interoperability program represented in the US's submission to the WTDC for a Study Question on Conformance Testing, and as part of its program for the Plenipotentiary Conference. WTSA Resolution 76, issued at the 2012 World Telecommunications/ICTs Standards Assembly (WTSA), articulates the relationship of conformity assessment to the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, ITU-T Recommendations X.290-X.296, on ISO conformance testing, Plenipotentiary Resolution 177 and WTDC Resolution 47, on Conformance and Interoperability, and WTSA Resolutions 17 and 44 and Plenipotentiary Resolution 123, on bridging the standardization gap. As already noted in connection with vertical integration, the indicators by which the Information Society project's progress is being measured are based on the same ISIC definitions that underly the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, linking them to both vertically integrated networks and a new conception of interoperability. Identifiers Infrastructure: ITU processes have also issued numerous resolutions articulating pieces of an inter-governmentally endorsed technical infrastructure for identifiers that may support the validation or enforcement of various kinds of policy. Significant pieces of this framework were issued as resolutions by the 2012 WTSA. They were characterized there as "merely technical" and thereby appropriately within the scope of the WTSA and ITU's Standardization Sector (ITU-T). However, they have been supplemented this year with more substantive enactments issued by the recent WTDC under ITU's Development Sector (ITU-D), and like the Conformance and Interoperability program, these WTSA and WTDC resolutions fulfill directives from the 2010 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, and therefore enjoy an intergovernmentally endorsed status. If we do not examine how well the framework enacted by the ITU's Plenipotentiary Resolutions actually represents the nature of the Internet, governments, including the US, will easily appeal to this framework as representing basic functions to be treated as a foundation for international connectivity, and they may thereby make it difficult to reclaim the original sense of interoperability of the Internet as they claim their new conception under the name of Internet Governance. Depending on how they are applied, these resolutions providing technical support for identifiers may affect not only open, general purpose technical interoperability, but also the free flow of information, the flexibility of the platform, and its support for interactive and collaborative uses of information published online. Our concern here is that before these provisions should be treated as components built into the design of international connectivity, their presence and the implications they may have for the nature of the Internet, as they may be used to build support for policy into networks, should be noted and given full opportunity for review prior to being treated as established elements of international networks. In the US, we see work underway on identifiers policy at the FCC, presented as the technology behind the IP Transition, currently articulated largely in relation to policies applicable to phone numbers. In the US Congress, bills such as the anti-spoofing bills HR 3670 and S 2787 may well serve as a part of a national implementation to support this international system of identifiers. The most direct provisions for identifiers are in WTSA outputs. WTSA 20, on allocating and managing of international numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources (NNAI), references the integrity and misuse of numbering resources, procedures for allocating and managing international NNAI articulated in ITU-T E-, F-, Q- and X-series Recommendations, and a call to assure Member State sovereignty in relation to country code NNAI plans and ITU-T E.164 (ENUM). Resolutions on alternate calling procedures such as WTSA Resolution 29, WTDC Resolution 22, and Plenipotentiary Resolution 21 address concerns for origin identification and misuse of resources. WTSA Resolutions 47, 48, 49 and 64 deal with addressing-related concerns (ccTLDs, IDNs, ENUM and IPv6). Along with WTDC Resolution 63, on IPv6 and address allocation, these resolutions reference Plenipotentiary Resolutions 102, on ITU's role in international Internet-related public policy, including management of Internet resources such as domain names and addresses, 133, on the role of Member States in IDNs, and 180, on the transition to IPv6. These resolutions are also referenced as technical supports for the Internet via Plenipotentiary Resolution 178 and WTSA Resolution 75. Resolutions on Cybersecurity reference ITU-T Study Group 17's work on public key infrastructures, identity management, and digital signatures, including WTSA 50 and WTDC 45. These references reflect ITU-T work on discovery of identity management information in ITU-T Recommendation X.1255. The theme of confidence and security in ICTs, as voiced in these resolutions and Plenipotentiary Resolutions 130, 174 and 181, may also implicitly reference the use of identifiers, and the facilities for validation and enforcement that may be built around them. Finally, in the context of Conformance and Interoperability, the reference in Plenipotentiary Resolution 177 to concerns in developing countries regarding counterfeit equipment may also designate a function that may be served, in connection with the TBTA, through validation and enforcement based on identifiers. In Conclusion We urge the FCC to reestablish the policy environment that gave us the Internet and to reconsider the decisions made at the outset of the Information Society project which have led to a thoroughly misguided domestic telecommunications policy environment. An international policy framework designed to support the type of network environment presently projected in the Information Society project's enactments is not consistent with the policies that assured that independent networks could readily enter the network of networks in the United States and freely interoperate among themselves. We are not calling you to enact a sweeping redefinition of broadband, as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) might call it; we are asking that you reaffirm the policy framework that originally gave us the Internet. And we are asking that you not allow a commitment to the international Information Society project as it is presently articulated to mislead the US into recasting the very bases of the US telecommunications tradition to which we owe the rise of the open Internet. Sincerely, (Affiliations listed for identification purposes only) Janna Anderson, Director of the Imagining the Internet Center, Elon University Amelia Andersdotter, FITUG, e.V. (http://www.fitug.de/) Karl Bode, Freelance technology writer, editor of DSLreports.com Robin Chase, Founder, Zipcar, GoLoco, Buzzcar, Veniam ‘Works Karl Fogel, QuestionCopyright.org Gene Gaines, Gaines Group Robert Gregory, BSEE, UCB, Non-Profit IT Director and IP Network Evangelist Paul Hyland, Education Week Seth Johnson, Information Quality Specialist Bruce Kushnick, Executive Director, New Networks Institute Dean Landsman, LCG Jon Lebkowsky, President, EFF-Austin Michael Maranda, Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance W. Scott McCollough, Esq. Sascha Meinrath, Director, X-Lab, Founder, Open Technology Institute John T. Mitchell, Interaction Law Hunter Newby, CEO, Allied Fiber Bruce Perens, co-founder of the Open Source movement in software David P. Reed, Ph.D., Internet Pioneer Chuck Sherwood, Principal, Community Media Visioning Dana Spiegel, Executive Director, NYCwireless Brough Turner, Founder, netBlazr Inc. Paul Vixie, CEO, Farsight Security John G. Waclawsky, Ph.D., Technology Advisor and Consultant, Chicago and Washington David Weinberger, Ph.D., Senior Researcher at Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society John Wilbanks, Chief Commons Officer at Sage Bionetworks Brett Wynkoop, First provider of public Internet access in New York City Respond to: Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 12 00:07:14 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:37:14 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] ITU work on counterfeit producs Message-ID: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained our guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed the danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' unauthorised' was removed. Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil society groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in the below article. parminder ----- *Title :* TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns *Date :* 11 November 2014 *Contents:* TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) 12 November 2014 Third World Network _________________________________________________________________________________________ *Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns* Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP protection and enforcement on development. The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and Substandard ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. (For details see: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) The conference has the following three objectives: (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT products as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding counterfeit devices. The conference will have the following four sessions (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): * Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products; * Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; * Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); * Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations), representatives of international organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization (WCO), World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and Development Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and ICT transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). The curious case of participation is the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only participant that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by cleverly conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing the public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that are about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, and generic medicines are the same.) Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to push for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference states that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue and unfair competition. However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the participants. For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the rightful intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark (brand) of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the original product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal backing to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a phone. IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same system to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are sold in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI numbers. (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside the importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not needed and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened to be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge loophole for criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are being shipped to a third country”. Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the power to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the requirement under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. *ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon* ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The IP enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following multilateral organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, INTERPOL, UN Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP enforcement initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership (PPP) to achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local manufacturing capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also many areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: “Counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices and equipment as well as accessories and components”. The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. These flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing countries to innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that are in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool available under the IP laws of many countries. One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is to incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and to ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus the upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the real action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that developed county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work program to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT equipment. In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications management), in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States and Sector Members; (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing public awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways of limiting them; (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being transported to developing countries; (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. ITU’s 14^th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 November 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on counterfeit. However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in 2010. The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 on “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the “Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with the Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the Director of the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets the Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial plans; and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members of Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work program for the next four years.) The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a full-fledged work program on IP enforcement. The Busan Resolution recognises: /a) /the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences thereof for users, governments and the private sector; /b) / that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; /c) /that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening consumers and the environment; /d) / that some countries have adopted measures to raise awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: /a) /that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country; /b) / that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or duplication of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication standards-development organizations related to these matters. The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices; (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices. It also invites all the membership to: (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure and services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries with respect to counterfeit equipment.” Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their national telecommunication/ICT strategies. It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in combating counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing of them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) studies relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions and in other appropriate ways”.+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 00:32:55 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:32:55 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not confused with any other application. Which really needs to be vitiated. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized > machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may be > hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of dust > free environment is required for manufacturing. > > They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus > components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. > > Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP > enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. > > On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder > wrote: >> >> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the >> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained our >> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed the >> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' >> unauthorised' was removed. >> >> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a >> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is >> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in >> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil society >> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in the >> below article. >> >> parminder >> >> ----- >> >> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement >> raises concerns >> Date : 11 November 2014 >> >> Contents: >> >> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) >> 12 November 2014 >> Third World Network >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns >> >> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on >> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International >> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP protection >> and enforcement on development. >> >> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications >> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and Substandard >> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. >> (For details see: >> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) >> >> The conference has the following three objectives: >> >> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and >> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; >> >> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, >> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight >> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; >> >> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development >> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global >> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT products >> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding >> counterfeit devices. >> >> The conference will have the following four sessions >> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): >> >> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and >> Substandard ICT Products; >> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; >> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and >> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); >> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the >> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. >> >> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry >> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, >> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations), >> representatives of international organisations such as the World >> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization (WCO), >> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and Development >> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and ICT >> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). >> >> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of >> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only participant >> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has >> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by cleverly >> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. >> >> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition >> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing the >> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that are >> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, and >> generic medicines are the same.) >> >> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to push >> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The >> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference states >> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and >> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue and >> unfair competition. >> >> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the participants. >> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and >> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the rightful >> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile >> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or >> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark (brand) >> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the original >> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. >> >> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal backing >> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile Equipment >> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a phone. >> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same system >> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are sold >> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of >> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, and to >> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered IMEI >> numbers. >> >> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP >> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside the >> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not needed >> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) >> >> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile >> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they happened to >> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge loophole for >> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs >> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are being >> shipped to a third country”. >> >> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the power >> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the requirement >> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. >> >> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon >> >> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by >> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. The IP >> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following multilateral >> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, INTERPOL, UN >> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP enforcement >> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership (PPP) to >> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for >> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. >> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in the >> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and IPU. >> >> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching >> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local manufacturing >> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized >> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP >> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also many >> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. >> >> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication >> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in Dubai, >> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: “Counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices and >> equipment as well as accessories and components”. >> >> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for >> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in the >> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. These >> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing countries to >> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey >> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that are >> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool available >> under the IP laws of many countries. >> >> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is to >> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and to >> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable >> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other >> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for sale >> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus the >> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the real >> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. >> >> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard >> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global >> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that developed >> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on >> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work program >> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT >> equipment. >> >> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals with >> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications management), >> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: >> >> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting >> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States and >> Sector Members; >> >> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member >> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing public >> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways of >> limiting them; >> >> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being >> transported to developing countries; >> >> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste from >> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. >> >> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 November >> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating >> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology >> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on >> counterfeit. >> >> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in 2010. >> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 on >> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the “Director of >> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with the >> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the Director of >> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing their >> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to bear >> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning >> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication >> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body of >> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets the >> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial plans; >> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members of >> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work >> program for the next four years.) >> >> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a full-fledged >> work program on IP enforcement. >> >> The Busan Resolution recognises: >> >> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation of >> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences >> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; >> >> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may >> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; >> >> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often >> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, threatening >> consumers and the environment; >> >> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise >> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the >> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that developing >> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; >> >> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: >> >> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do not >> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and >> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should be >> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication >> networks of that country; >> >> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles to >> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study the >> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use and >> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; >> >> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux to: >> >> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to >> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing at >> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; >> >> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU >> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking the >> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or duplication >> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication >> standards-development organizations related to these matters. >> >> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices; >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; and >> >> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices. >> >> It also invites all the membership to: >> >> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating counterfeit >> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; >> >> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of >> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. >> >> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference >> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and >> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that >> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication infrastructure and >> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing countries >> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” >> >> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >> >> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their national >> telecommunication/ICT strategies. >> >> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with >> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in combating >> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing of >> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to >> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) studies >> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions and in >> other appropriate ways”.+ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 08:19:30 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:19:30 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] ITU work on counterfeit producs In-Reply-To: <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <5462EB02.1000601@itforchange.net> <149a2791a70.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <149a2894328.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Working on distinguishing "IP enforcement" right now establishes the distinction before the transition of identifiers functions is implemented. Avoids just baking things into infrastructure without first confronting and addressing what that means, including at bottom the simple point that "IP enforcement" is different from other things people want to do. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I hate it when that does get brought in, or manufacturers conflate > legitimately manufactured third party alternatives with bogus components. > Working on security requires rather more consensus than the cat fight a > typical ITU conclave or civil society mailing list seems to engender.. > > > > > On November 12, 2014 11:03:38 AM Seth Johnson > wrote: > >> Oh, please. Bringing in "IP enforcement" is assuring that's not >> confused with any other application. Which really needs to be >> vitiated. >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> > I will just state that any modern pharma plant uses heavily computerized >> > machinery and robots in several cases where the chemical components may >> > be >> > hazardous to human health in their raw form, or where extreme levels of >> > dust >> > free environment is required for manufacturing. >> > >> > They have, prima facie, a legitimate interest in seeing that no bogus >> > components turn up anywhere in their manufacturing chain. >> > >> > Safety and security in ict is a serious enough topic that bringing in IP >> > enforcement only vitiates an essential debate and initiative. >> > >> > On November 12, 2014 10:38:26 AM parminder >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Those who were following the ITU PP meeting would have noticed the >> >> resolution about counterfeit products. Most of us on the ground trained >> >> our >> >> guns on the possible inclusion of the term 'unauthorised' which posed >> >> the >> >> danger to extreme traceability of all communication. This term ' >> >> unauthorised' was removed. >> >> >> >> Please see below an article by Gopa Kumar, of Third World Network, a >> >> member of the Just Net Coalition, on how the 'counterfeit' part is >> >> problematic enough. There is an ITU meeting on counterfeit products in >> >> Geneva on 17th and 18th Nov, and it could be useful for some civil >> >> society >> >> groups to come up with a statement underlining the concerns raised in >> >> the >> >> below article. >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> >> >> Title : TWN IP Info: Conference on ICT intellectual property >> >> enforcement >> >> raises concerns >> >> Date : 11 November 2014 >> >> >> >> Contents: >> >> >> >> TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Nov14/05) >> >> 12 November 2014 >> >> Third World Network >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> Conference on ICT intellectual property enforcement raises concerns >> >> >> >> Geneva, 12 November (K M Gopakumar) – An upcoming conference on >> >> intellectual property (IP) enforcement organised by the International >> >> Telecommunication Union (ITU) raises concerns on the impact of IP >> >> protection >> >> and enforcement on development. >> >> >> >> The ITU conference that will focus on information and communications >> >> technology devices (ICT) is titled “Combating Counterfeit and >> >> Substandard >> >> ICT devices” and will be held on 17-18 November 2014 in Geneva, >> >> Switzerland. >> >> (For details see: >> >> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/WSHP_counterfeit.aspx) >> >> >> >> The conference has the following three objectives: >> >> >> >> (1) Discuss the global scope and impact of counterfeiting and >> >> substandard ICT products on various stakeholders; >> >> >> >> (2) Highlight the common concerns, challenges, initiatives, >> >> practices and opportunities of the various stakeholders in their fight >> >> against counterfeiting and substandard ICT products; >> >> >> >> (3) Examine the possible role of ICT standards development >> >> organizations (SDOs) and in particular the ITU, as part of the global >> >> strategy and solution to curtail counterfeiting and substandard ICT >> >> products >> >> as well as to assist members in addressing their concerns regarding >> >> counterfeit devices. >> >> >> >> The conference will have the following four sessions >> >> (http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/C-I/Pages/Programme.aspx): >> >> >> >> Policy debate: Governments’ Perspectives on Combating Counterfeit and >> >> Substandard ICT Products; >> >> Intergovernmental Initiatives Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT; >> >> Technology Debate, ICT Industry Perspectives and >> >> Anti-Counterfeit/Substandard Technologies and Systems (parts 1 & 2); >> >> Development Opportunities and International Standards as Part of the >> >> Global Strategy Against Counterfeit and Substandard ICT Products. >> >> >> >> The list of speakers includes national regulators, ICT industry >> >> associations (e.g. Mobile Manufacturers Forum, GSM Association, >> >> International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & >> >> Associations), >> >> representatives of international organisations such as the World >> >> Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Customs Organization >> >> (WCO), >> >> World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic and >> >> Development >> >> Cooperation (OECD) and the IP Directorate of the European Union, and >> >> ICT >> >> transnational corporations (e.g. Cisco, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard). >> >> >> >> The curious case of participation is the International Federation of >> >> Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), the only >> >> participant >> >> that is not directly dealing with any ICT devices. However, IFPMMA has >> >> long-standing experience in advocating for IP tough enforcement by >> >> cleverly >> >> conflating IP enforcement with the quality of medicines. >> >> >> >> (Such conflation is designed to undermine generic medicines competition >> >> with expensive patented or originator company's medicines, by confusing >> >> the >> >> public and regulators into thinking that “counterfeit” medicines that >> >> are >> >> about copying of trademark, medicines that have questionable quality, >> >> and >> >> generic medicines are the same.) >> >> >> >> Interestingly the ICT industry is also pursuing the same strategy to >> >> push >> >> for IP enforcement by citing the sceptre of safety and security. The >> >> submission of the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF) to the conference >> >> states >> >> that the counterfeit problem touches many aspects including health and >> >> safety, environment, security quality of services, loss of tax revenue >> >> and >> >> unfair competition. >> >> >> >> However, the IP angle is clearly articulated by some of the >> >> participants. >> >> For instance, MMF in its submission states: “… both counterfeit and >> >> substandard mobile phones avoid the payment of royalties to the >> >> rightful >> >> intellectual right holders”. It further states that counterfeit mobile >> >> phones explicitly infringe the trademark or design of an original or >> >> authentic product: “A counterfeit mobile phone copies the trademark >> >> (brand) >> >> of an original well recognised brand, copies the form factor of the >> >> original >> >> product, and/or copies the packaging of the original product”. >> >> >> >> The MMF submission proposes increased enforcement, including legal >> >> backing >> >> to block phones that do not possess a valid International Mobile >> >> Equipment >> >> Identity (IMEI) number, which is used by GSM operators to track a >> >> phone. >> >> IMEI is used mainly to block a stolen phone. MMF proposes the same >> >> system >> >> to enforce IP. Often, through parallel importation, mobile handsets are >> >> sold >> >> in informal markets with altered IMEI. MMF wants legal amendment of >> >> national laws to prohibit the alteration or changing of IMEI numbers, >> >> and to >> >> make it a criminal offence to distribute mobile phones with altered >> >> IMEI >> >> numbers. >> >> >> >> (Parallel importation is the legal import by a third party of an IP >> >> protected product when the IP holder has marketed that product outside >> >> the >> >> importing country. In such a situation the IP holder’s consent is not >> >> needed >> >> and no royalty payments are due to the IP holder.) >> >> >> >> The MMF submission also states: “Many counterfeit substandard mobile >> >> phones are out of reach of the customs authorities because they >> >> happened to >> >> be in transit through a particular country. This creates a huge >> >> loophole for >> >> criminal organisations to distribute throughout the world as customs >> >> officials are powerless to seize obvious counterfeit products that are >> >> being >> >> shipped to a third country”. >> >> >> >> Therefore MMF signals that it wants customs authorities to have the >> >> power >> >> to seize goods in transit, a measure that goes far beyond the >> >> requirement >> >> under the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. >> >> >> >> ITU joins the IP enforcement bandwagon >> >> >> >> ITU is the latest entrant in the IP enforcement game initiated by >> >> developed countries and transnational corporation since around 2005. >> >> The IP >> >> enforcement initiatives have found a place in the following >> >> multilateral >> >> organisations: WHO, WIPO, WTO, WCO, International Postal Union, >> >> INTERPOL, UN >> >> Office on Drugs and Crime. In most of these organisations IP >> >> enforcement >> >> initiatives were pushed in the form of a public private partnership >> >> (PPP) to >> >> achieve the goal of enforcing a private privilege (which a reward for >> >> inventiveness and innovation is and not a “right”) using public money. >> >> Developing countries have opposed and pushed back such initiatives in >> >> the >> >> several multilateral organisations including the WHO, WCO, UNODC and >> >> IPU. >> >> >> >> The IP enforcement agenda within ITU has serious and far-reaching >> >> implications on developing countries’ efforts to achieve local >> >> manufacturing >> >> capabilities and it may affect the interests of small and medium sized >> >> enterprises. Since the scope of the ICT devices is so broad any IP >> >> enforcement initiative can affect not only mobile handsets but also >> >> many >> >> areas of radio, telecommunications and computer equipment. >> >> >> >> Resolution 79 adopted at the ITU’s sixth World Telecommunication >> >> Development Conference (WTDC-14) from 30 March to 14 April 2014 in >> >> Dubai, >> >> United Arab Emirates defines counterfeit very broadly to read: >> >> “Counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices include counterfeit and/or copied devices >> >> and >> >> equipment as well as accessories and components”. >> >> >> >> The general nature of recent IP enforcement initiatives is to push for >> >> “TRIPS Plus” standards and to minimise the flexibilities available in >> >> the >> >> TRIPS Agreement with regard to the protection and enforcement of IP. >> >> These >> >> flexibilities are aimed at maintaining the space for developing >> >> countries to >> >> innovate and develop themselves. The suggestion to clamp down the “grey >> >> market” and to use service providers to deny services for devices that >> >> are >> >> in the grey market would compromise the parallel importation tool >> >> available >> >> under the IP laws of many countries. >> >> >> >> One of the dominant strategies of transnational corporate interests is >> >> to >> >> incorporate IP enforcement strategies as part of standards setting and >> >> to >> >> ensure that products which do not comply with a country's applicable >> >> national conformity processes and regulatory requirements or other >> >> applicable legal requirements, should be considered unauthorized for >> >> sale >> >> and/or activation on telecommunication networks of that country. Thus >> >> the >> >> upcoming November Conference is an event that offers a glimmer into the >> >> real >> >> action that is in ITU’s standard setting bodies. >> >> >> >> The IP enforcement agenda in ITU is pushed through its various standard >> >> setting bodies known as “study groups”. This would ensure the global >> >> compliance with IP enforcement norms that industry wants and that >> >> developed >> >> county governments project. Study group 11, which sets the standards on >> >> protocols and test specifications, has already undertaken the work >> >> program >> >> to develop a technical report on counterfeited and substandard ICT >> >> equipment. >> >> >> >> In addition, ITU Resolution 79 instructed study group 2 (that deals >> >> with >> >> operational aspects of service provision and telecommunications >> >> management), >> >> in collaboration with other relevant ITU study groups, to: >> >> >> >> (1) Prepare and document examples of best practices on limiting >> >> counterfeit and copied devices, for distribution to ITU Member States >> >> and >> >> Sector Members; >> >> >> >> (2) Prepare guidelines, methodologies and publications to assist Member >> >> States in identifying counterfeit devices and methods of increasing >> >> public >> >> awareness to restrict trade in these devices, as well as the best ways >> >> of >> >> limiting them; >> >> >> >> (3) Study the impact of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices being >> >> transported to developing countries; >> >> >> >> (4) Continue studying safe ways of disposing of the harmful e-waste >> >> from >> >> the counterfeit devices currently in circulation in the world. >> >> >> >> ITU’s 14th Plenipotentiary Conference (PPC) on 20 October to 7 >> >> November >> >> 2014 in Busan, Republic of Korea adopted a resolution on “Combating >> >> counterfeit telecommunication/information and communication technology >> >> devices”. This is the first resolution exclusively focussing on >> >> counterfeit. >> >> >> >> However, the capture of ITU for the IP enforcement agenda started in >> >> 2010. >> >> The last PPC in 2010 held in Guadalajara, Mexico adopted Resolution 177 >> >> on >> >> “Conformance and interoperability”. This resolution invited the >> >> “Director of >> >> the Telecommunication Development Bureau, in close collaboration with >> >> the >> >> Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau and the >> >> Director of >> >> the Radio communication Bureau to assist Member States in addressing >> >> their >> >> concerns with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> >> >> Further the resolution invited Member States and Sector Members “to >> >> bear >> >> in mind the legal and regulatory frameworks of other countries >> >> concerning >> >> equipment that negatively affects the quality of their >> >> telecommunication >> >> infrastructure, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >> >> countries with respect to counterfeit equipment”. >> >> >> >> (PPC takes place once in four years and is the top policy making body >> >> of >> >> ITU. It specifically makes the decisions in the following areas: sets >> >> the >> >> Union's general policies; adopts four-year strategic and financial >> >> plans; >> >> and elects the senior management team of the organization, the members >> >> of >> >> Council, and the members of the Radio Regulations Board; sets the work >> >> program for the next four years.) >> >> >> >> The latest PPC resolution i.e. COM5/4 (Busan 2014) sets out a >> >> full-fledged >> >> work program on IP enforcement. >> >> >> >> The Busan Resolution recognises: >> >> >> >> a) the growing problem related to the sale and circulation >> >> of >> >> counterfeit devices in the market, as well as the adverse consequences >> >> thereof for users, governments and the private sector; >> >> >> >> b) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices may >> >> negatively impact on security and quality of service for users; >> >> >> >> c) that counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices often >> >> contain illegal and unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, >> >> threatening >> >> consumers and the environment; >> >> >> >> d) that some countries have adopted measures to raise >> >> awareness of this issue and deployed successful solutions to deter the >> >> spread of counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices, and that >> >> developing >> >> countries may benefit from learning from those experiences; >> >> >> >> Further, the Busan Resolution states that it considers: >> >> >> >> a) that, in general, telecommunication/ICT devices that do >> >> not >> >> comply with a country's applicable national conformity processes and >> >> regulatory requirements or other applicable legal requirements, should >> >> be >> >> considered unauthorized for sale and/or activation on telecommunication >> >> networks of that country; >> >> >> >> b) that ITU and other relevant stakeholders have key roles >> >> to >> >> play in fostering coordination between the parties concerned to study >> >> the >> >> impact of counterfeit devices and the mechanism for limiting their use >> >> and >> >> to identify ways of dealing with them internationally and regionally; >> >> >> >> The Resolution further instruct the Directors of the three ITU Bureaux >> >> to: >> >> >> >> (1) Assist Member States in addressing their concerns with respect to >> >> counterfeit telecommunication/ICT devices through information sharing >> >> at >> >> regional or global level, including conformity assessment systems; >> >> >> >> (2) Assist all the membership, considering relevant ITU-T (ITU >> >> Telecommunication Standardization Sector) recommendations, in taking >> >> the >> >> necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering with and/or >> >> duplication >> >> of unique device identifiers, interacting with other telecommunication >> >> standards-development organizations related to these matters. >> >> >> >> The Busan Resolution also invites Member States to: >> >> >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices; >> >> >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >> >> and >> >> >> >> (3) Encourage participation in industry programmes combating >> >> counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices. >> >> >> >> It also invites all the membership to: >> >> >> >> (1) Participate actively in ITU studies relating to combating >> >> counterfeit >> >> telecommunication/ICT devices by submitting contributions; >> >> >> >> (2) Take the necessary actions to prevent or detect the tampering of >> >> unique telecommunication/ICT devices identifiers. >> >> >> >> The earlier Resolution 79 from the March/April 2014 Dubai conference >> >> invites Member States and Sector Members “to bear in mind the legal and >> >> regulatory frameworks of other countries concerning equipment that >> >> negatively affects the quality of their telecommunication >> >> infrastructure and >> >> services, in particular recognizing the concerns of developing >> >> countries >> >> with respect to counterfeit equipment.” >> >> >> >> Further, Resolution 79 invites Member States to: >> >> >> >> (1) Take all necessary measures to combat counterfeit devices; >> >> >> >> (2) Cooperate and exchange expertise among themselves in this area; >> >> >> >> (3) Incorporate policies to combat counterfeit devices in their >> >> national >> >> telecommunication/ICT strategies. >> >> >> >> It also invites telecommunication operators “to cooperate with >> >> governments, administrations and telecommunication regulators in >> >> combating >> >> counterfeit devices, restricting trade in these devices and disposing >> >> of >> >> them safely, encourages Member States, Sector Members and Academia to >> >> participate actively in ITU-D (ITU Development Communication Sector) >> >> studies >> >> relating to combating counterfeit devices by submitting contributions >> >> and in >> >> other appropriate ways”.+ >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > > From lea at gp-digital.org Thu Nov 13 10:42:39 2014 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:42:39 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced Message-ID: Dear all, As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional period. On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil society at that meeting should be - please share them here. Looking forward to working with you all. Best, *Lea Kaspar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 10:50:50 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:50:50 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Pew Survey - Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowden Era Message-ID: FYIPublic Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowden Era http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-privacy-perceptions/ -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Thu Nov 13 11:03:08 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:03:08 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5464D63C.9030709@cdt.org> Lea - congratulations to you and those selected. Looking forward to seeing you all in Geneva in December. Matthew On 11/13/2014 3:42 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press > release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: > http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm > > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name > forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in > coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil > society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you to all > outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and guidance to > get us through this transitional period. > > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF > Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were > not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the > civil society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult > to coordinate (or hold someone to account). > > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been > threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to > represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The > first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few > weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: > http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the > priorities for those of us representing civil society at that meeting > should be - please share them here. > > Looking forward to working with you all. > > Best, > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_| M: +44 (0)7583 929216| Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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 -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 06:11:11 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 18:11:11 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54541889.2030709@acm.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> <54541889.2030709@acm.org> Message-ID: <5110E9C5-8AAC-479F-BADE-E652262114BC@difference.com.au> On 1 Nov 2014, at 7:17 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. 'Open participatory' or similar language might be a term that would clearly capture the idea. It doesn't mean abandoning the MS term, as you are able to talk about 'open participatory multistakeholder' (and thus provide a way of distinguishing bodies like ICANN from bodies like WEF). David > > 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 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 . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum>> li-democ >>> racy-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 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 ). 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 >> 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 , 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 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 website or following at 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 of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) 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 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 >>> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- 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: From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Nov 13 11:14:46 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:14:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: <5464D63C.9030709@cdt.org> References: <5464D63C.9030709@cdt.org> Message-ID: <5A23C10C-8949-4922-98CC-BCBF4087D780@consensus.pro> A big +1. A lot of work! I'm glad you all are willing to do it. On 13 Nov 2014, at 17:03, Matthew Shears wrote: > Lea - congratulations to you and those selected. > > Looking forward to seeing you all in Geneva in December. > > Matthew > > On 11/13/2014 3:42 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm >> >> Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional period. >> >> On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). >> >> I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil society at that meeting should be - please share them here. >> >> Looking forward to working with you all. >> >> Best, >> >> Lea Kaspar >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >> gp-digital.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 > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 11:16:34 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:16:34 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next steps, we could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives to discuss some topics that might be relevant for all of us. C On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press > release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: > http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm > > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward > and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating > civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues > who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're > counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional > period. > > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF > Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not > fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil > society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to > coordinate (or hold someone to account). > > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been > threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to > represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first > MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec > 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you > have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil > society at that meeting should be - please share them here. > > Looking forward to working with you all. > > Best, > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Nov 13 11:31:52 2014 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:31:52 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5464DCF8.3070805@privaterra.org> Lea congratulations to you and other colleagues who have been selected! regards Robert On 2014-11-13 11:16 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next > steps, we could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives > to discuss some topics that might be relevant for all of us. C > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal > press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: > http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm > > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name > forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put > in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to > all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you > to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and > guidance to get us through this transitional period. > > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the > IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations > were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at > least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which > makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). > > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been > threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to > represent the views of the community as a civil society member. > The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place > in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: > http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the > priorities for those of us representing civil society at that > meeting should be - please share them here. > > Looking forward to working with you all. > > Best, > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 > | Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Thu Nov 13 11:35:08 2014 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:35:08 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: <5464DCF8.3070805@privaterra.org> References: ,<5464DCF8.3070805@privaterra.org> Message-ID: +1 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:31:52 -0500 From: rguerra at privaterra.org To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced Lea congratulations to you and other colleagues who have been selected! regards Robert On 2014-11-13 11:16 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next > steps, we could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives > to discuss some topics that might be relevant for all of us. C > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal > press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: > http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm > > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name > forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put > in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to > all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you > to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and > guidance to get us through this transitional period. > > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the > IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations > were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at > least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which > makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). > > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been > threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to > represent the views of the community as a civil society member. > The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place > in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: > http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the > priorities for those of us representing civil society at that > meeting should be - please share them here. > > Looking forward to working with you all. > > Best, > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 > | Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 11:40:27 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:40:27 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats to Ephraim, Lea and all. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Nov 2014 16:42, "Lea Kaspar" wrote: > Dear all, > > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press > release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: > http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm > > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward > and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating > civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues > who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're > counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional > period. > > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF > Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not > fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil > society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to > coordinate (or hold someone to account). > > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been > threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to > represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first > MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec > 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you > have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil > society at that meeting should be - please share them here. > > Looking forward to working with you all. > > Best, > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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: From joao.caribe at me.com Thu Nov 13 11:43:38 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:43:38 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B205BDD-325C-45B4-92EB-755FE167E9DE@me.com> Congrats to all civil society approved for this new round of MAG: - Fatima Cabronero; - Avri Doria; - Ephraim Percy - Lea Kaspar And others Em 13/11/2014, às 13:42, Lea Kaspar escreveu: > Dear all, > > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm > > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional period. > > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). > > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil society at that meeting should be - please share them here. > > Looking forward to working with you all. > > Best, > > Lea Kaspar > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > gp-digital.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 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 11:54:18 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=C3=B3mez?=) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:54:18 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: <5464DCF8.3070805@privaterra.org> Message-ID: +1 Congratulations 2014-11-13 11:35 GMT-05:00 Grace Githaiga : > +1 > > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:31:52 -0500 > From: rguerra at privaterra.org > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced > > > Lea congratulations to you and other colleagues who have been selected! > > regards > > Robert > > > On 2014-11-13 11:16 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next > > steps, we could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives > > to discuss some topics that might be relevant for all of us. C > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar > > wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal > > press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: > > http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm > > > > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name > > forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put > > in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to > > all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you > > to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and > > guidance to get us through this transitional period. > > > > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the > > IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations > > were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at > > least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which > > makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). > > > > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been > > threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to > > represent the views of the community as a civil society member. > > The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place > > in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: > > http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the > > priorities for those of us representing civil society at that > > meeting should be - please share them here. > > > > Looking forward to working with you all. > > > > Best, > > > > *Lea Kaspar* > > > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 > > | Skype: l.kaspar > > > > gp-digital.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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 > -- Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet presidencia at acui.co @amedinagomez Skype amedinagomez Celular 3118689626 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 12:09:56 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:09:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: <0B205BDD-325C-45B4-92EB-755FE167E9DE@me.com> References: <0B205BDD-325C-45B4-92EB-755FE167E9DE@me.com> Message-ID: <78D53FD5-50B7-4634-B044-FDAC0171BFB1@gmail.com> Congrats yes, and condolences too… Bill (retiring/recovering MAG) > On Nov 13, 2014, at 5:43 PM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > > Congrats to all civil society approved for this new round of MAG: > > - Fatima Cabronero; > - Avri Doria; > - Ephraim Percy > - Lea Kaspar > > And others > > > Em 13/11/2014, às 13:42, Lea Kaspar escreveu: > >> Dear all, >> >> As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm >> >> Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional period. >> >> On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). >> >> I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp . If you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil society at that meeting should be - please share them here. >> >> Looking forward to working with you all. >> >> Best, >> >> Lea Kaspar >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033 <>7 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >> gp-digital.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 > -- > João Carlos R. Caribé > Consultor > Skype joaocaribe > (021) 4042 7727 > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ekenyanito at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 14:00:57 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:00:57 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 to having a hangout to plan. Thanks for CSCG for all their hard working putting together an excellent list of civil society nominations. I am humbled for the consideration. I hope this will be a great opportunity for CS nominees to be at the forefront in advancing priorities of concern to CS. -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 On 13 November 2014 19:16, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next steps, we > could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives to discuss some > topics that might be relevant for all of us. C > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press >> release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: >> http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm >> >> Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward >> and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating >> civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues >> who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're >> counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional >> period. >> >> On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF >> Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not >> fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil >> society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to >> coordinate (or hold someone to account). >> >> I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been >> threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to >> represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first >> MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec >> 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If >> you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil >> society at that meeting should be - please share them here. >> >> Looking forward to working with you all. >> >> Best, >> >> *Lea Kaspar* >> >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >> >> gp-digital.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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From ekenyanito at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 14:13:20 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:13:20 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: <5464DCF8.3070805@privaterra.org> Message-ID: ​ I see some familiar names: - Fatima Cabronero; - Avri Doria; - Lea Kaspar -Virginia Paque -Jak SM Kee - John Dada -Aida Mahmutovic -Shita Laksmi -Bianca Ho -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 On 13 November 2014 19:54, Antonio Medina Gómez wrote: > +1 Congratulations > > 2014-11-13 11:35 GMT-05:00 Grace Githaiga : > > +1 >> >> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:31:52 -0500 >> From: rguerra at privaterra.org >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced >> >> >> Lea congratulations to you and other colleagues who have been selected! >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> On 2014-11-13 11:16 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> > Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next >> > steps, we could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives >> > to discuss some topics that might be relevant for all of us. C >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar > > > wrote: >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal >> > press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: >> > http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm >> > >> > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name >> > forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put >> > in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to >> > all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you >> > to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and >> > guidance to get us through this transitional period. >> > >> > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the >> > IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations >> > were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at >> > least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which >> > makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). >> > >> > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been >> > threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to >> > represent the views of the community as a civil society member. >> > The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place >> > in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: >> > http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the >> > priorities for those of us representing civil society at that >> > meeting should be - please share them here. >> > >> > Looking forward to working with you all. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > *Lea Kaspar* >> > >> > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> > >> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> > >> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 >> > | Skype: l.kaspar >> > >> > gp-digital.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 >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ 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 >> > > > > -- > Antonio Medina Gómez > Presidente > Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet > presidencia at acui.co > @amedinagomez > Skype amedinagomez > Celular 3118689626 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From dave at difference.com.au Sat Nov 1 06:21:50 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 18:21:50 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) Message-ID: 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: -------------- 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: From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 14:16:17 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:16:17 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 * ** * On 13 November 2014 13:00, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote: > +1 to having a hangout to plan. > > Thanks for CSCG for all their hard working putting together an excellent > list of civil society nominations. I am humbled for the consideration. I > hope this will be a great opportunity for CS nominees to be at the > forefront in advancing priorities of concern to CS. > > > -- > > Best Regards, > ​​ > *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* > Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito > tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120 > @ekenyanito > Skype: ekenyanito > PGP: E6BA8DC1 > > On 13 November 2014 19:16, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > >> Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next steps, we >> could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives to discuss some >> topics that might be relevant for all of us. C >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press >>> release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: >>> http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm >>> >>> Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward >>> and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating >>> civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues >>> who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're >>> counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional >>> period. >>> >>> On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF >>> Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not >>> fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil >>> society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to >>> coordinate (or hold someone to account). >>> >>> I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been >>> threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to >>> represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first >>> MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec >>> 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If >>> you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil >>> society at that meeting should be - please share them here. >>> >>> Looking forward to working with you all. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> *Lea Kaspar* >>> >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> >>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>> >>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >>> >>> gp-digital.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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 16:59:52 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:59:52 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [ITAC] CIP Outreach Update: A Successful ITU Plenipotentiary Conference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Zoller, Julie N Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:27 AM Subject: [ITAC] CIP Outreach Update: A Successful ITU Plenipotentiary Conference To: ITAC at lmlist.state.gov Dear Colleagues, The U.S. delegation to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference has returned from a successful meeting in Busan, Korea. The conference concluded with a strong consensus and all four of the U.S. delegation’s primary objectives were achieved. To learn more, read Ambassador Sepulveda’s recent DipNote The Busan Consensus , and the related Media Note . Thanks to all our colleagues in Washington, D.C. and around the world who supported us in this effort. As always, we also encourage you to follow CIP on EB’s Facebook and Twitter accounts available here . Best Regards, Julie This email is UNCLASSIFIED. -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Thu Nov 13 17:02:20 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:02:20 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54652A6C.6080709@softwarefreedom.org> Congratulations Avri and Lea! Look forward to your term at the MAG! On 11/13/2014 11:16 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next steps, > we could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives to discuss > some topics that might be relevant for all of us. C > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal > press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: > http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm > > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name > forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put > in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to > all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you > to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and > guidance to get us through this transitional period. > > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the > IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations > were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at > least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which > makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). > > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been > threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to > represent the views of the community as a civil society member. > The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place > in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: > http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the > priorities for those of us representing civil society at that > meeting should be - please share them here. > > Looking forward to working with you all. > > Best, > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 > | Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 17:07:40 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:07:40 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [global-congress] Civil Society Leadership Scholarships In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sean Flynn Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:09 PM Subject: [global-congress] Civil Society Leadership Scholarships To: GLOBAL-CONGRESS at roster.wcl.american.edu Young researchers on this list may be interested in this unique scholarship that could be used to attend our new LLM in IP degree. http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/ll-m-specializations-in-intellectual-property A new Civil Society Leadership scholarship opportunity will pay all expenses for getting a Masters degree in a variety of disciplines, including law. All of the LLM programs here at American University are eligible, and we are one of only two eligible LLM programs in the United States (the other is Syracuse). The guidelines are attached and the deadline to apply is coming soon (December 15). If you have any partners in these countries or know of lawyers in these countries looking for an opportunity to study here, this is a great opportunity to promote. ( Note that permanent residents of the United States are not eligible) . Civil Society Leadership Awards are available to *citizens* of the following countries: - *Azerbaijan * - *Belarus * - *Cambodia * - *Democratic Republic of Congo* - *Egypt * - *Equatorial Guinea* - *Eritrea* - *Ethiopia * - *Laos * - *Libya* - *Republic of Congo* - *South Sudan * - *Sudan * - *Syria * - *Turkmenistan* - *Uzbekistan * If you would like to unsubscribe from this mailing list please click the below link: mailto:LISTSERV at ROSTER.WCL.AMERICAN.EDU ?body=SIGNOFF%20GLOBAL-CONGRESS&SUBJECT=Remove -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSLA - Guidelines - 2015-16.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 54404 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Fri Nov 14 03:22:29 2014 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:22:29 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: <54652A6C.6080709@softwarefreedom.org> References: <54652A6C.6080709@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E020B3E12@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Congratulations everyone! From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Mishi Choudhary Sent: 13 November 2014 23:02 To: Avri Doria; Lea Kaspar Cc: Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced Congratulations Avri and Lea! Look forward to your term at the MAG! On 11/13/2014 11:16 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next steps, we could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives to discuss some topics that might be relevant for all of us. C On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: Dear all, As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional period. On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil society at that meeting should be - please share them here. Looking forward to working with you all. Best, Lea Kaspar Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.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 ____________________________________________________________ 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: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 03:54:06 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:54:06 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> 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 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 > *********************************************** 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 *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Fri Nov 14 04:15:24 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:15:24 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: congratulations to all who got elected! Good idea with the hangout! I'd like to make a proposal with regard to the future composition of the MAG. This year I feel really happy to see that one youth got elected into the MAG: Bianca Ho. However I think youth had a rather ornamental position within the IGF and needs a substantial backing of their role. This could be achieved by establishing a youth category in the composition of future MAGs. It would be great if we could discuss this and make it part ot the CS agenda at the MAG. Many thanks in advance and kind regards, Lorena 2014-11-13 20:00 GMT+01:00 Ephraim Percy Kenyanito : > +1 to having a hangout to plan. > > Thanks for CSCG for all their hard working putting together an excellent > list of civil society nominations. I am humbled for the consideration. I > hope this will be a great opportunity for CS nominees to be at the > forefront in advancing priorities of concern to CS. > > > -- > > Best Regards, > ​​ > *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* > Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito > tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120 > @ekenyanito > Skype: ekenyanito > PGP: E6BA8DC1 > > On 13 November 2014 19:16, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > >> Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next steps, we >> could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives to discuss some >> topics that might be relevant for all of us. C >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press >>> release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: >>> http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm >>> >>> Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name forward >>> and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in coordinating >>> civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil society colleagues >>> who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS reps - we're >>> counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this transitional >>> period. >>> >>> On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF >>> Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not >>> fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil >>> society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to >>> coordinate (or hold someone to account). >>> >>> I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been >>> threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to >>> represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first >>> MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec >>> 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If >>> you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil >>> society at that meeting should be - please share them here. >>> >>> Looking forward to working with you all. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> *Lea Kaspar* >>> >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> >>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>> >>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >>> >>> gp-digital.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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vkapiyo at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 04:25:00 2014 From: vkapiyo at gmail.com (Victor Kapiyo) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:25:00 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats to everyone, you've got your plates full already and I wish you all the best as you embark on your new roles. Victor On 14 Nov 2014 12:15, "Lorena Jaume-Palasi" wrote: > congratulations to all who got elected! Good idea with the hangout! > I'd like to make a proposal with regard to the future composition of the > MAG. This year I feel really happy to see that one youth got elected into > the MAG: Bianca Ho. However I think youth had a rather ornamental position > within the IGF and needs a substantial backing of their role. This could be > achieved by establishing a youth category in the composition of future > MAGs. It would be great if we could discuss this and make it part ot the CS > agenda at the MAG. > Many thanks in advance and kind regards, > Lorena > > 2014-11-13 20:00 GMT+01:00 Ephraim Percy Kenyanito : > >> +1 to having a hangout to plan. >> >> Thanks for CSCG for all their hard working putting together an excellent >> list of civil society nominations. I am humbled for the consideration. I >> hope this will be a great opportunity for CS nominees to be at the >> forefront in advancing priorities of concern to CS. >> >> >> -- >> >> Best Regards, >> >> *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* >> Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito >> tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120 >> @ekenyanito >> Skype: ekenyanito >> PGP: E6BA8DC1 >> >> On 13 November 2014 19:16, Carolina Rossini >> wrote: >> >>> Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next steps, we >>> could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives to discuss some >>> topics that might be relevant for all of us. C >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press >>>> release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: >>>> http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm >>>> >>>> Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name >>>> forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in >>>> coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil >>>> society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS >>>> reps - we're counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this >>>> transitional period. >>>> >>>> On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF >>>> Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not >>>> fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil >>>> society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to >>>> coordinate (or hold someone to account). >>>> >>>> I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been >>>> threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to >>>> represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first >>>> MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec >>>> 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If >>>> you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil >>>> society at that meeting should be - please share them here. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to working with you all. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> *Lea Kaspar* >>>> >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> >>>> Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>>> >>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >>>> >>>> gp-digital.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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí * Coordinator, Global Internet Governance > Arbeitsgruppe > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de * www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter > > * Facebook * Twitter * > Youtube > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From arbih2002us at yahoo.com Fri Nov 14 05:30:28 2014 From: arbih2002us at yahoo.com (arbih2002us at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:30:28 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced Message-ID: +1 Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Grace Githaiga Date: 13/11/2014 17:35 (GMT+01:00) To: Robert Guerra ,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced +1 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:31:52 -0500 From: rguerra at privaterra.org To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced Lea congratulations to you and other colleagues who have been selected! regards Robert On 2014-11-13 11:16 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next > steps, we could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives > to discuss some topics that might be relevant for all of us. C > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal > press release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: > http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm > > Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name > forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put > in in coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to > all civil society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you > to all outgoing CS reps - we're counting on your knowledge and > guidance to get us through this transitional period. > > On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the > IGF Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations > were not fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at > least) who the civil society MAG members are at the moment, which > makes it difficult to coordinate (or hold someone to account). > > I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been > threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to > represent the views of the community as a civil society member. > The first MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place > in a few weeks (Dec 1-3) and the agenda is available here: > http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If you have thoughts on what the > priorities for those of us representing civil society at that > meeting should be - please share them here. > > Looking forward to working with you all. > > Best, > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 > | Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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: From anriette at apc.org Fri Nov 14 05:49:52 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:49:52 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5465DE50.9070003@apc.org> 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 > > 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 >> >> //// >> >> *//* > > *********************************************** > 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 -- ````````````````````````````````` 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: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Nov 1 06:56:57 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:56:57 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Principles (warning - long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi David, The bestbits subscribers awaken this morning all felt that you had something to deliver. So many emails!! :-) 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... 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). 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. 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: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 08:55:53 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:55:53 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG 2015 members announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations to the new MAG, the newly elected and the reappointed, and best wishes for the work ahead of them. Let me add to Lorena's suggestion of a youth category the need to have a constant voice for people with disabilities. Judy Okite has provided this for the last few years, but she has finished her term of appointment. She made this suggestion herself at the last MAG meeting in Istanbul. Since one billion people around the world suffer from some disability, and the Internet can offer considerable relief for them, they are the holders of a very significant "stake". Sadly it is easy to forget if one does not suffer from a disability oneself, which is why it is so important to have a dedicated voice for these stakeholders in all such groups. Best wishes Deirdre On 14 November 2014 05:15, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > congratulations to all who got elected! Good idea with the hangout! > I'd like to make a proposal with regard to the future composition of the > MAG. This year I feel really happy to see that one youth got elected into > the MAG: Bianca Ho. However I think youth had a rather ornamental position > within the IGF and needs a substantial backing of their role. This could be > achieved by establishing a youth category in the composition of future > MAGs. It would be great if we could discuss this and make it part ot the CS > agenda at the MAG. > Many thanks in advance and kind regards, > Lorena > > 2014-11-13 20:00 GMT+01:00 Ephraim Percy Kenyanito : > >> +1 to having a hangout to plan. >> >> Thanks for CSCG for all their hard working putting together an excellent >> list of civil society nominations. I am humbled for the consideration. I >> hope this will be a great opportunity for CS nominees to be at the >> forefront in advancing priorities of concern to CS. >> >> >> -- >> >> Best Regards, >> ​​ >> *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* >> Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito >> tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120 >> @ekenyanito >> Skype: ekenyanito >> PGP: E6BA8DC1 >> >> On 13 November 2014 19:16, Carolina Rossini >> wrote: >> >>> Congrats Lea. Maybe when you have more clear some of the next steps, we >>> could also arrange a Hangout with the CS representatives to discuss some >>> topics that might be relevant for all of us. C >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As you may have heard by now, the UN has just issued a formal press >>>> release announcing the 2015 MAG membership: >>>> http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/pi2104.doc.htm >>>> >>>> Thank you once again to the BestBits network for putting my name >>>> forward and to Ian Peter and the CSCG for the hard work they put in in >>>> coordinating civil society nominations. Congratulations to all civil >>>> society colleagues who got selected, and a big thank you to all outgoing CS >>>> reps - we're counting on your knowledge and guidance to get us through this >>>> transitional period. >>>> >>>> On a more pragmatic note, it would be useful to follow up with the IGF >>>> Secretariat to shed some light on why the CSCG recommendations were not >>>> fully taken on board. It is also unclear (to me, at least) who the civil >>>> society MAG members are at the moment, which makes it difficult to >>>> coordinate (or hold someone to account). >>>> >>>> I'm still not fully sure how the whole thing works (we have been >>>> threatened with an induction process), but I plan to do my best to >>>> represent the views of the community as a civil society member. The first >>>> MAG meeting to welcome incoming members will take place in a few weeks (Dec >>>> 1-3) and the agenda is available here: http://tinyurl.com/ka2w5sp. If >>>> you have thoughts on what the priorities for those of us representing civil >>>> society at that meeting should be - please share them here. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to working with you all. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> *Lea Kaspar* >>>> >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> >>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>>> >>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >>>> >>>> gp-digital.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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance > Arbeitsgruppe > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter > > ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ > Youtube > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Fri Nov 14 10:14:11 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:14:11 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54661C43.1020004@cdt.org> Bill Great idea thanks! For those who are attending the CSTD meeting, Friday will be key as there will be a full day on WSIS. The report that Bill links to in his mail will also be up for discussion. We should expect some/many of the difficult discussions we witnessed during the WSIS+10 review to resurface on Friday. The report is very fair one and worth a read - but there will be states that will object to it and/or to parts of it. I think it worthwhile that those of us who are attending meet on Thursday to discuss how we can best coordinate our interests. Matthew On 11/14/2014 8:54 AM, 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 > > 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 >> >> //// >> >> *//* > > *********************************************** > 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 -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Fri Nov 14 12:45:14 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:45:14 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: <54661C43.1020004@cdt.org> References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> <54661C43.1020004@cdt.org> Message-ID: I will be around on Friday but unfortunately not the previous days as I'll be in Ottawa. Regards, Nick On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:14, Matthew Shears wrote: > Bill > > Great idea thanks! > > For those who are attending the CSTD meeting, Friday will be key as there will be a full day on WSIS. The report that Bill links to in his mail will also be up for discussion. We should expect some/many of the difficult discussions we witnessed during the WSIS+10 review to resurface on Friday. The report is very fair one and worth a read - but there will be states that will object to it and/or to parts of it. I think it worthwhile that those of us who are attending meet on Thursday to discuss how we can best coordinate our interests. > > Matthew > > On 11/14/2014 8:54 AM, 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 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 >>> >> >> *********************************************** >> 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 > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nicadumlao at yahoo.com Fri Nov 14 13:47:48 2014 From: nicadumlao at yahoo.com (Nica Dumlao) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 02:47:48 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] APrIGF 2015 Macau - Call for Themes & Workshop Proposals Message-ID: Dear BestBits community, Please find below the call for session proposals and themes for the 2015 Asia Pacific Regional IGF. Hope to have more CSOs in this regional space this time. All the best, Nica -------------------------- Nica Dumlao Internet Rights Coordinator Foundation for Media Alternatives Unit 209 #77 Xavierville Ave. cor. B. Gonzalez St. Lyola Heights, Quezon City, PH 1108 +632 435 6684 +63915 979 2894 skype id: nicadumlao -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Rigf_discuss] APrIGF 2015 Macau - Call for Themes & Workshop Proposals From: APrIGF Secretariat To: msg at aprigf.asia CC: discuss at aprigf.asia Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum APrIGF 2015 Macau 30 Jun - 3 Jul 2015 Venetian Hotel Macao http://2015.rigf.asia Open Call for Themes and Workshop Proposals Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) is one of the key regional initiatives on Internet governance which provides an open platform for multi-stakeholders to discuss and identify issues and priorities, and ultimately advances the development of Internet governance in the Asia Pacific region as well as bring forward and contribute to the wider global Internet community. Hosted by HNET.Asia, the registry for the ccTLD of Macau (.mo), APrIGF 2015 will be held from 30 Jun (Tue) to 3 Jul (Fri) at the Venetian Hotel Macao in conjunction with an annual local telecommunications event - CommuniMacao (3-5 Jul). With the many recent developments of the Internet such as the IANA stewardship transition and the discussion of post-2015 development agenda, etc, APrIGF 2015 will definitely be the good platform for all these important discussions. Our Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group(MSG) now would like to call upon the community to contribute to the program development process and suggest any thematic issues or topic of discussions as well as pre-events or workshop proposals for 2015! Online Submission Form: (http://2015.rigf.asia/theme-submissions/) Thematic Suggestion Deadline: 4 Dec 2014 (Thu) Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 11 Mar 2015 (Wed) **Travel support will be available with partial subsidies provided to selected APrIGF delegates. An application process will be announced in due course. If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia. If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia by sending in subscription request. We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia for more information. Best Regards, Secretariat of APrIGF http://www.aprigf.asia _______________________________________________ Rigf_discuss mailing list Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APrIGF Logo.png Type: image/png Size: 18584 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ekenyanito at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 15:07:08 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 23:07:08 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] CS @ MAG & IGF /WSIS+10 meetings in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <1CD4A8C6-9B77-4DC5-B956-BA7238C5B8BA@gmail.com> <54661C43.1020004@cdt.org> Message-ID: Looking forward to these discussions, please make arrangements for remote participation. -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito tel: (+254)-786-191-930 / (+254)-751-804-120 @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 On 14 November 2014 20:45, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I will be around on Friday but unfortunately not the previous days as I'll > be in Ottawa. > > Regards, Nick > > > On 14 Nov 2014, at 16:14, Matthew Shears wrote: > > Bill > > Great idea thanks! > > For those who are attending the CSTD meeting, Friday will be key as there > will be a full day on WSIS. The report that Bill links to in his mail will > also be up for discussion. We should expect some/many of the difficult > discussions we witnessed during the WSIS+10 review to resurface on Friday. > The report is very fair one and worth a read - but there will be states > that will object to it and/or to parts of it. I think it worthwhile that > those of us who are attending meet on Thursday to discuss how we can best > coordinate our interests. > > Matthew > > On 11/14/2014 8:54 AM, 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 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 > > * * > > > *********************************************** > 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 > > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Fri Nov 14 16:10:42 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:10:42 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54666FD2.90206@softwarefreedom.org> Moglen on Hannigan: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/13/gchq-assault-privacy-illegality-net-blackmail-surveillance -- 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Nov 16 23:04:30 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:04:30 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative Message-ID: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> 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 Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative A must read djf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Bob Hinden" Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" 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 https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20141116-ISOC-BOT-NMI-Statement.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 149690 bytes Desc: not available URL: From likeanarrow at gmail.com Sun Nov 16 23:57:25 2014 From: likeanarrow at gmail.com (Bill Graham) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:57:25 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> Message-ID: Those are great. I suspect they are evidence of the John Cleese takeover of the planet. And I am confident Chris's comment will help to remind you that our exchanges are not always desirable. Cheers! Bill > On Nov 16, 2014, at 20:04, Ian Peter wrote: > > 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 > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > > A must read djf > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bob Hinden" > Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM > Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > 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 > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > <20141116-ISOC-BOT-NMI-Statement.pdf> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From likeanarrow at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 00:16:39 2014 From: likeanarrow at gmail.com (Bill Graham) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 21:16:39 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> Message-ID: <320CEFD3-A6C7-4E95-B2C5-1F357F66546E@gmail.com> Apologies! Wrong address! Bill > On Nov 16, 2014, at 20:57, Bill Graham wrote: > > Those are great. I suspect they are evidence of the John Cleese takeover of the planet. > > And I am confident Chris's comment will help to remind you that our exchanges are not always desirable. > > Cheers! > Bill > > > >> On Nov 16, 2014, at 20:04, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> 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 >> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> >> A must read djf >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Bob Hinden" >> Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM >> Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative >> To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" >> 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 >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees >> >> Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now >> <20141116-ISOC-BOT-NMI-Statement.pdf> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Nov 17 00:22:03 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 06:22:03 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative In-Reply-To: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> References: <4C1CC9CFF16542F0AA106D4E88770B93@Toshiba> Message-ID: Interesting indeed! Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 17 Nov 2014 05:05, "Ian Peter" wrote: > 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 > *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM > *To:* ip > *Subject:* [IP] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > > > A must read djf > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bob Hinden" > Date: Nov 16, 2014 5:30 PM > Subject: [isoc-trustees] ISOC Board Statement on the Net Mundial Initiative > To: "ISOC Board of Trustees" > 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 > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees > > Archives > | Modify > > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: