[bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

[Amelia Andersdotter]

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