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

Antonio Medina Gómez amedinagomez at gmail.com
Thu Nov 20 18:38:42 EST 2014


+1 Mwenda
Totally agree with your ideas. Support for such initiatives. It comes hard
work and takes time and ongoing coordination.
I think the door is open for a civil society in action

2014-11-20 10:59 GMT-05:00 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>:

> Thanks, Mwenda, I like this approach. I think it will be helpful.
> Ginger
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>
> *Application deadline approaching: * Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy
> with Internet Governance option   http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD
> <http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=68a4fc5e88&e=bc0aff4eba>
> * <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>** <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>*
>
>
> On 20 November 2014 09:27, Byoung-il Oh <antiropy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree!
>>
>> Byoungil Oh
>>
>>
>> 2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>:
>>
>>> I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the
>>> deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top
>>> among them being:-
>>> 1. Have a bottom up  approach
>>> 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent
>>> seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share
>>> the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are
>>> being dangled at CS.
>>> 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is
>>> build upon with input from all.
>>>
>>> Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would
>>> not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI
>>> stating our objections and expectations.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> ______________________
>>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>>> L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh
>>> B: http://lord.me.ke/
>>> T: twitter.com/lordmwesh
>>>
>>> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk
>>> on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org>
>>> 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> 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>
>>> >> 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>
>>> >>
>>> >> 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] 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>
>>> 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> 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> 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, 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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>     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.
>>> >>
>>> >>     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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>   --
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>   Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> >>
>>> >>   The Internet Democracy Project
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>   +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> >>
>>> >>   www.internetdemocracy.in
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ____________________________________________________________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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive
>>> >>
>>> >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755,
>>> >>
>>> >> melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> 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
>>> >> 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.
>>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> >>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Renata Avila
>>> > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want
>>> > 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 | 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Antonio Medina Gómez
Presidente
Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet
presidencia at acui.co
@amedinagomez
Skype amedinagomez
Celular 3118689626
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141120/0022053a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Bestbits mailing list