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

Thu Nov 20 07:20:16 EST 2014

Jeanette,

Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed information that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions? Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of corporations, big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller entrepreneurs, who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the criteria to say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has a high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in Davos, to start with.

You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is this all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to bother to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy candidate. If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no copyright on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN and a few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those without a comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.

Thanks
JC

Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> 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.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/3fdd63b0/attachment.htm>