[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