[bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

Tue Nov 18 02:49:04 EST 2014

Jeremy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks 
JC

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

Wolfgang

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

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

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