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

[Nnenna Nwakanma]

+1000

Nnenna

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
wrote:

>  Dear all
>
> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members
> about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings,
> evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for
> not participating.
>
> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also
> asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are
> concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.
>
> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and
> I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also
> feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and
> clear.
>
> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian
> had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'.
>
> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed
> at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have
> actually been addressed.
>
> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its
> mechanisms.
>
> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
> national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty naive to many
> but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive  democratic
> multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer
> connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and
> mechanisms.
>
> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>
> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
> following:
>
> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
> - a limited timeframe
> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
> continue or not
>
>
> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it closely
> to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together
> prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation has had
> impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and whether it
> meets the criteria important to us.
>
> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns out
> not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we can
> always withdraw.
>
> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,
> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive
> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out.  I think that
> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial
> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,
> internet governance.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>  On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>  Dear all,
>
>  A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
> some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative,
> and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great
> respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder
> whether I'm missing something here.
>
>  For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as
> earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want
> to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider
> community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
> themselves some fixed seats.
>
>  I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly
> are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list
> too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give
> feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed
> under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing
> we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would
> happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the
> initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have
> had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go
> ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF
> made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the
> individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the
> structure as a whole, I am not so certain)
>
>  I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia
> and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how
> we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.
>
>  Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>   Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>> Society members here.
>>
>>  My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to table
>> our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ
>> is not met.
>>
>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>> dont think we should miss out.
>>
>>  NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>> interested in the NMI.
>>
>>  I see it is okay if one network or list  or platform  decides NOT to
>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>
>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.
>>
>>  All for now
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>>  On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>   Jeremy,
>>>
>>>  Thanks for your email.
>>>
>>>  Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both
>>> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.
>>>
>>>  Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>>> and impact.
>>>
>>>  What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with
>>> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind
>>> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my
>>> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that
>>> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie"
>>> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple
>>> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing and
>>> growing?
>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>>  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo,
>>> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has
>>> nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they
>>> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.
>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>>> than IANA for example?
>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the
>>> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to
>>> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are
>>> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative
>>> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more
>>> "values".
>>>
>>>  I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless,
>>> CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakness
>>> that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyone
>>> else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>>
>>>  Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their
>>> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that
>>> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after
>>> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest,
>>> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their
>>> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please
>>> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>>
>>>  So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debate
>>> and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live
>>> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens,
>>> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any
>>> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are
>>> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of
>>> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of
>>> the WEF.
>>>
>>>  Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more
>>> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a
>>> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current
>>> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes
>>> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often
>>> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When
>>> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply
>>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they
>>> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other
>>> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work,
>>> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would
>>> unleash violence.
>>>
>>>  JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our
>>> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as
>>> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>>
>>>  There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we
>>> should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden
>>> agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That
>>> would be fair.
>>>
>>>  JC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>>
>>>  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, 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 ::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> --
> `````````````````````````````````
> anriette esterhuysen
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/d8ea5554/attachment.htm>