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

Renata Avila renata at webfoundation.org
Thu Nov 20 13:58:32 EST 2014


Same concerns remain.

Thank you for such clarification, in any case.

R

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> > 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
>>
>>


-- 
*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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/553db6b0/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list