[bestbits] [governance] Re: FW: [discuss] JNC statement on WEF's Net Mundial Initiative
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Tue Nov 18 13:01:56 EST 2014
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 <nb at bollow.ch>:
> 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
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list