[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
parminder at itforchange.net
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Nov 20 18:33:00 EST 2014
> The ought to be some limits to having to read silly conclusions like
> this one.
Carlos
When the NMI was initially launched in Aug 2014, you have publicly said
that "The WEF is a very inadequate venue for this kind of practice"
I suspected that this statement had something to do with how progressive
civil society views the WEF, with issues of neoliberalism, social justice,
etc being central to such viewing... (Please let me know if I judged
wrong.)
But suddenly you seem to consider any statement asserting that joining a
WEF based governance initiative could be seen as a jettisoning social
justice considerations as being silly beyond limits, which frankly
surprises me.
So, what happened between Aug and now that makes you change your views so
drastically. Just bec WEF has sought to soften the blows of the criticism
it faced by co-opting an IG related agency of one developing country
(regrettable the one which have us the World Social Forum with the direct
purpose of challenging the WEF's worldview) . Should bec of that one fact
the rest of the world stop saying what you were saying a few months back?
parminder
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 11/20/14 08:13, michael gurstein 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] *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>> 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>> 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>> 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/>, 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 <https://eff.org/>
>> 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>.
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> `````````````````````````````````
>>
>> anriette esterhuysen
>>
>> executive director
>>
>> association for progressive communications
>>
>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>>
>> anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>>
>> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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