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

[Jeremy Malcolm]

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

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

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

Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

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