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

[Nnenna Nwakanma]

Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me the
more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not
perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
abandoning the pursuit of social justice?

If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
Mandela.  And it is him who said:
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
enemy. Then he becomes your partner."

I will rest my case for now

Nnenna

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So Anriette, I’m taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you
> are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social
> justice.
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette Esterhuysen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
> *To:* Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
> *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
>
>
> 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 africa
>
> anriette at apc.org
>
> www.apc.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/eebf4043/attachment.htm>