[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Thu Nov 20 13:22:29 EST 2014
If you are committing yourself to a process which is being framed, driven and evidently stage managed by the 1% it is very hard, I believe, to draw any other conclusion. Or perhaps the 1%/WEF will suddenly discover a passion for social justice and we can all relax.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:55 AM
To: michael gurstein; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Anja Kovacs'; 'Nnenna Nwakanma'
Cc: 'Governance'; 'Best Bits'
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
The ought to be some limits to having to read silly conclusions like this one.
--c.a.
On 11/20/14 08:13, michael gurstein 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <http://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 <https://eff.org/>
> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>
> www.apc.org <http://www.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
>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list