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

Carlos Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Thu Nov 20 13:56:43 EST 2014


 > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
 > discussion?

With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 11/20/14 16:47, Renata Avila wrote:
> ​Dear all,
>
> Happy to clarify my email, if it was not clear enough. I am also
> including the maps I did not include in my previous email.
>
> Again, there are no indications of opening and continuing revising the
> draft document. If there is a process to reopen the document and improve
> it, please indicate it. I know Net Mundial was considered by many a huge
> achievement and consensus. For the three reasons I explained before
>
> 1. Weak anti surveillance language
> 2. Inclusion of copyright provisions
> 3. Lack of South input, from all sectors
>
> I have always considered quite incomplete. If it is an open discussion
> and there will be an engaging process to "fix it" then it is a different
> conversation.
>
> Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
> discussion?
>
> With respect,
>
> Renata​
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>     Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought to
>     be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is
>     formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us more
>     about what is silly here?
>
>
>     Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit :
>
>      > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles
>     and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"??
>      >
>      > --c.a.
>      >
>      > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila 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
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>      >> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>     <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto: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 <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
>     <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto: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>
>      >>>>    <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>>
>      >>>>    [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>      >>>>    <mailto: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>
>      >>>>    <mailto: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>
>      >>>>    <mailto: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>
>      >>>>    <mailto: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>
>     <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
>      >>>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>     <mailto: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>
>     <mailto: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>
>     <mailto: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 <tel:%2B91%209899028053>
>     <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>      >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>     <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>    ____________________________________________________________You
>      >>>>    received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To>
>      >>>>    <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>
>      >>>>    <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>     <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >>>>    ____________________________________________________________
>      >>>>    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>     <mailto: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
>      >>>
>      >>>    --
>      >>>    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
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>     <mailto: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
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> --
>      >> *Renata Avila *
>      >> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
>      >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
>      >> +44 7477168593 <tel:%2B44%207477168593> (UK)
>      >>
>      >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
>     Washington
>      >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org
>     <http://www.webfoundation.org>*
>      >> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> ____________________________________________________________
>      >> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Renata Avila *
> Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want <https://webwewant.org/>
> 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*
> <http://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
>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list