[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Carlos Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Thu Nov 20 14:29:58 EST 2014
I think I did not make myself clear. The Declaration itself points to
several instances of further discussion (e.g, net neutrality), and
basically is a set of general guidelines around which a significant
level of consensus was obtained. Once we start debating it with a view
of going deeper into the roadmap, several new issues will arise and old
ones will as well need to be dealt with.
I do not think it is wise to treat the discussion on how to advance on
the Declaration by doing like some of the so-called "like-minded
countries" who treat the Tunis Agenda as an inmutable bible. It is clear
that, if we wish to go ahead, many issues need to be clarified,
improved, revisited etc. Sorry, I thought this was really obvious.
frt rgds
--c.a.
On 11/20/14 17:08, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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