[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Ginger Paque
gpaque at gmail.com
Thu Nov 20 10:59:06 EST 2014
Thanks, Mwenda, I like this approach. I think it will be helpful.
Ginger
Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
*Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy
with Internet Governance option http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=68a4fc5e88&e=bc0aff4eba>
* <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>** <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>*
On 20 November 2014 09:27, Byoung-il Oh <antiropy at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree!
>
> Byoungil Oh
>
>
> 2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>:
>
>> I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the
>> deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top
>> among them being:-
>> 1. Have a bottom up approach
>> 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent
>> seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share
>> the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are
>> being dangled at CS.
>> 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is
>> build upon with input from all.
>>
>> Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would
>> not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI
>> stating our objections and expectations.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> ______________________
>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>> L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh
>> B: http://lord.me.ke/
>> T: twitter.com/lordmwesh
>>
>> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk
>> on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>>
>>
>> On 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at
>> the
>> > closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any
>> > effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs.
>> > Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least,
>> somehow,
>> > regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against
>> all
>> > citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language
>> > against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to
>> > please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts
>> of the
>> > copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just
>> the
>> > result of an event outside the regular events around Internet
>> Governance is
>> > simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two
>> of
>> > the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies,
>> of our
>> > free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the
>> outcome
>> > document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human
>> rights
>> > standards.
>> >
>> > The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work
>> by
>> > CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the
>> attached
>> > maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries
>> > from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It
>> was
>> > a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but,
>> paradoxically,
>> > with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but,
>> except
>> > for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum
>> and
>> > Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at
>> > least no unity in key demands.
>> >
>> > So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
>> > will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is
>> flawed
>> > and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil
>> Society.
>> > Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher
>> but
>> > lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and
>> concerns
>> > for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of
>> such
>> > principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few
>> of
>> > those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and
>> resources
>> > that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among
>> few.
>> >
>> > There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has
>> been
>> > discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are
>> giving
>> > to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
>> >
>> > * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
>> position
>> > of the Web Foundation.
>> >
>> > Renata
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>> > Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Renata Avila
>> > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want
>> > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
>> > +44 7477168593 (UK)
>> >
>> > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
>> D.C.
>> > 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/7b6cd476/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list