[bestbits] [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Mon Nov 24 04:21:41 EST 2014
I completely agree with Lee's conclusions. Let's put aside our underdog
attitude for a moment and think about projects that we could advance
with the help of this new platform.
Here at #Afrisig2014, we have discussed some ideas about evolving the
summer school model, developing a more general curriculum, put together
textbooks and stuff like that.
(For clarification, I am not applying for a seat on any NMI council, and
my personal career does not benefit from supporting new IG platforms
either.)
jeanette
Am 24.11.14 05:36, schrieb Lee W McKnight:
> I am MORE in favor IGC engaging with NMI because:
>
> 1.
> the rationale and explanations from Carlos Afonso and cgi.br
> colleagues are clear and sensible; those who helped pull off
> NetMundial have earned IGC’s support
> 2.
> The views of the I-orgs, who were against IGF before they were for
> it (cough cough), are also clear but less convincing, seeing as
> those orgs do not claim to be the appropriate venues themselves to
> address the range of issues likely to be (in my opinion) brought to
> NMI, and offer no alternative. Should NMI prove to be of some merit,
> no doubt the I orgs will engage at a later date.
> 3.
> Likewise, the more JNC has explained its views, the less weight they
> hold, seeing as they appear focused on a specifically anti-US big
> (internet) business animus , completely neglecting to note the new
> giants on the block such as Alibaba's record-setting IPO which has
> resulted in a firm that has a market cap far exceeding the Amazon
> boogeyman, as well as Walmart's. (not that there is anything wrong
> with Alibaba, but obsessively picking on the little guy/small(er)
> business - Amazon ; ) - seems to be misplaced and unhelpful to
> multistakeholder dialog and governance. (OK to be fair JNC is in
> good company picking on Amazon, since like JNC, Wall Street is also
> giving Amazon a hard time of late, as are European publishers
> Hachette and Springer who are also managing to push back against
> Amazon themselves. Anyway, this anti-Amazon obsession of some is but
> a sideshow/distraction to consideration of broader Internet
> governance issues and should therefore carry limited weight in
> IGC's own considerations, although of course everyone is free to
> voice whatever views they wish, whether of Amazon or something more
> relevant to the issues at hand.
> 4.
> Last but not least, the historical triumph of - cgi.br and ICANN
> coopting WEF - to facilitate industry engagement in broader IG
> policy issues discussions and implementations should be recognized
> for what it is, and not mistaken for a sign of the failure but
> rather is a mark of success/the mainstreaming of Internet
> governance, as matters of truly global Import and requiring truly
> global solutions.
>
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 23, 2014 10:42 PM
> *To:* <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
> It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT.
>
> I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI.
>
> Nnenna
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
> <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear David Cake,
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au
> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>
> Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the
> process, and having them run the process by their own rules.
>
> I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory,
> multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to
> eloquently express some of the positions of the commercial
> sector. Often, commercial representatives within IG processes
> often represent small sectors of the commercial world with very
> strong biases towards particular issues (such as telcos and
> copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader
> commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in
> IG spaces might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And
> note, welcoming the involvement of such organisations is not the
> same as having sympathy for their policy positions and actions,
> simply I'd rather debate those positions in an open,
> transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have to battle
> covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in
> which CS has no voice.
>
> But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open
> multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not
> open, they are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial
> led processes, with commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome
> to keep doing those things, but such processes should not be
> considered legitimate means of producing multi-stakeholder
> transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly started
> with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes,
> such as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted.
>
>
>
> 1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does
> not become part of WEF. WEF is to be seen as an organization that
> has joined other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may
> not be open, (it is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of
> managing their business forum), but as a participant of the
> NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not overwhelm this process with its
> own style.
>
> 2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each
> stakeholder group would balance the other groups. If the initial
> NMI processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so
> well thought of - in its early stages.
>
> As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI
> into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG
> in full respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial
> declaration.
> "
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
> So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in
> some ways - but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M
> <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Guru,
>
> (You (Guru) said:
> WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have seen
> the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS
> Declaration of Principles from the activities of
> transnational corporations. Apart from using/monetising
> our data for their commercial gains in
> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their
> unregulated work also is structuring our participation
> in the information society in many unhealthy ways.
> Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are
> in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary
> programme of global surveillance
>
>
> If such as strong generalization of big business is to be
> accepted as fair and valid, then all those who subscribe to
> such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS
> declarations and summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder
> group, and then declare that Internet Governance ought to be
> a process with two stakeholder groups - Government + Civil
> Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your reference to
> Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude
> Government from Internet Governance, and declare that
> Internet Governance must be reinvented as a single
> stakeholder group process, with Civil Society as the only
> stakeholder group.
>
> Seriously, i
> f WSIS had committed to build a "
> people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented
> Information Society
> ", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such
> a position on Big Business?
>
>
> And, why this hatred for big business? Most progress in this
> world has happened because of enterprise, much more because
> of business than because of Government. Granted, some of
> the information technology big businesses have worked with
> Governments on surveillance designs, and even there, we do
> not know how of much of such cooperation came out of a
> desire for profit and how much of it was forced by
> arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and
> imaginative ways.
>
> Irrespective of how WEF's role has been articulated at the
> moment, it is a very positive development to bring in the WEF
> .
>
> WEF participation suddenly expands business participation to
> a world of business outside the IT sector, so WEF's
> attention to IG issues might by itself act as a balancing
> influence within the corporate world, because many of these
> Big Businesses are Internet "users" themselves.
> Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in
> unknown ways. What is needed here is strong support at the
> moment, and w
> e could
> eventually
> work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.
>
>
> Sivasubramanian M
> <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru <Guru at itforchange.net
> <mailto:Guru at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
> Dear Mawaki
>
> I would like to cite from two sources:
>
> A. WSIS Declaration of Principles -
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html
> (the very first two clauses)
>
> 1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*,
> *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the
> first phase of the World Summit on the Information
> Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to
> build a people-centred, inclusive and
> development-oriented Information Society, where everyone
> can create, access, utilize and share information and
> knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples
> to achieve their full potential in promoting their
> sustainable development and improving their quality of
> life, premised on the purposes and principles of the
> Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and
> upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
> 2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of
> information and communication technology to promote the
> development goals of the Millennium Declaration, namely
> the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger;
> achievement of universal primary education; promotion of
> gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of
> child mortality; improvement of maternal health; to
> combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring
> environmental sustainability; and development of global
> partnerships for development for the attainment of a
> more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also
> reiterate our commitment to the achievement of
> sustainable development and agreed development goals, as
> contained in the Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of
> Implementation and the Monterrey Consensus, and other
> outcomes of relevant United Nations Summits.
>
> I now will cite from the WEF site -
> http://www.weforum.org/our-members
>
> Begin
> Our Members
> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization.
> Our Members comprise 1,000 of the world’s top
> corporations, global enterprises usually with more than
> US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises rank among
> the top companies within their industry and play a
> leading role in shaping the future of their industry and
> region. Some of our Member companies join the Forum’s
> Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which
> are designed to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s
> events, project and initiatives. The Forum’s Members are
> at the heart of all our activities.
> End
>
> It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big
> businesses. We have seen the increasing danger to the
> ideals of the WSIS Declaration of Principles from the
> activities of transnational corporations. Apart from
> using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in
> authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their
> unregulated work also is structuring our participation
> in the information society in many unhealthy ways.
> Through Snowden we also understand how many of them are
> in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on extraordinary
> programme of global surveillance, which helps them in
> their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation
>
> Participating in forums anchored in such a space will
> only legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should
> not participate in the NMI.
>
> thanks and regards
> Guru
>
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan
> Director, IT for Change
> In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations
> ECOSOC
> www.ITforChange.Net <http://www.itforchange.net/>|
> Cell:91 9845437730 <tel:91%209845437730> | Tel:91 80
> 26654134 <tel:91%2080%2026654134>, 26536890
> http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't repeat
> > the background details. In the middle of the night last night, before
> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing catch-up with
> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI
> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically, they are
> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the NMI
> > Coordination Council.
> >
> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership of CSCG
> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI process or
> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations we've been
> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and with the
> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we should be
> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position about
> > our participation in the NMI process.
> >
> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be brief.
> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement and, if
> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you if you
> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph (as we
> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see what I
> > mean.)
> >
> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards.
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 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:
> 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:
> 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
>
>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list