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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic question is if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates who are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we have experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that those who are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.) 
Jeanette 

On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>Thanks Nnenna.
>
>Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
>opinion.
>
>Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
>It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
>reciprocated.
>
>The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
>someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
>people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would
>be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
>some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
>
>We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
>respect differences of opinion. 
>
>Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
>APC as  “ an international network and non profit organisation that
>wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
>our lives and create a more just world”. No, she is not abandoning the
>pursuit of social justice.
>
>Ian Peter
>
>
>
>From: Nnenna Nwakanma 
>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
>To: michael gurstein 
>Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits 
>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
>NETmundial Initiative - RFC
>
>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 esterhuysenexecutive
>directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>____________________________________________________________
>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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.