[bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

[David Cake]

I think Ian's summary is a good one. 

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

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

David

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

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 ISOC has withdrawn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

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