[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
parminder at itforchange.net
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Nov 20 18:17:31 EST 2014
> > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
> > discussion?
>
> With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative.
Whereby you are saying that the new NetMundial Initiative is indeed a
normative process as the NM meeting in Sao Paolo was.
Richard Samans of WEF says it is not a normative process at all..
Can you guys be clear what it is and what it is not?
parminder
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/20/14 16:47, Renata Avila wrote:
>> âDear 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,
>>
>> Renataâ
>>
>> 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 â 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 worldâ. 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, Iâm 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 Iâm going to write a separate
>> blog
>> post
>> >>>> about
>> >>>> this at igfwatch.org <http://igfwatch.org>
>> <http://igfwatch.org>, because JNCâs
>> >>>> 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 Councilâ
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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 âbeing âtheâ mechanism for
>> global
>> [Internet]
>> >>>> governanceâ.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Iâve 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 -
>> Iâm 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