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

Norbert Bollow nb at bollow.ch
Thu Nov 20 14:08:19 EST 2014


On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200
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.

Is it somehow / somewhere officially stated that the NMI plan includes
reopening the São Paulo text for discussion?

If so, I'd appreciate a pointer, as I would have in that case missed
something of importance (even though I have been trying to observe this
closely.)

Greetings,
Norbert


> 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