[bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council

[parminder]

It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with 
the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF 
itself. This could be aparadigm shift and a historic dayfor the global 
governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way.

The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have 
achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for 
them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness 
of the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming too 
uncomfortable and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of 
the Internet's power establishment. (In the short term, this will help 
them address WSIS plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long 
terms gains as well.) Being able to win global popular support was 
extremely unlikely with the kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, 
which is increasingly common knowledge. Such democratic seekings are 
passe, really old-fashioned. And so they went for the easier catch - the 
global elite. It is an elite which often already identifies with a 
certain US centric global cosmopolitan-ism (grudging accepting the the 
US centred-ness of this global cultural phenomenon and hoping to 
cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even if some of them do not so 
accept - like some kinds of political and economic elites outside the US 
- it is ready to make power-for-power big deals and adjustments. That is 
what the World Economic Forum is, and everyone know this fact. But this 
is something to which a big part of civil society involved in the IG 
space today professed a complete blindness.

In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on 
it, the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in 
any case has been one of the most significant elements of the global 
politics around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship 
between the globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at 
least aspirational upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, 
well, rather constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in 
the same territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, 
captured in the phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a 
combination of political, economic and social elites of the world, and 
across the world (with its continuous demeaning of the nation state 
while taking all the benefit of its institutions). This political 
combination now has a clear home at the WEF, and in it, a clear symbol 
as well. It is spine-chilling to think what kind of deals and 
compromises will be worked out among the most powerful, now with the 
more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them.

This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may 
be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the 
status quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain 
possibilities of joining of forces among those outside the global 
Internet power configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it 
somewhat simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment 
not only a new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides 
those who would otherwise be together in their opposition to the US 
hegemony. Now the top businesses of developing countries can feel more 
equal with those from the US at WEF panels and working groups, and the 
leaders of the more powerful developing countries can be variously 
flattered and offered selective sops. That celebrated meeting of fat 
cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo op. Just the poor, the 
disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are missing from the 
forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new, means for ever 
greater digital control over them. The structures of controls will see 
minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions thrown around 
within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all be worse 
for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global paradigm is 
a great regression from even the status quo.

The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the 
first to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one 
seeking a seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about 
the Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God 
forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not 
do, about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and 
the exploited need to figure what they should  do; what is their 
response to this new global Internet power configuration. But for that 
they first need an organised civil society to direct and lead them, 
because most of the existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It 
is a difficult situation.

parminder


On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Dear Civil Society members,
>
> After a substantial consultation with members across many different 
> constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination 
> Group (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and 
> with the conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process 
> of selection of self nominated civil society representatives for the 
> Co ordination Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI).
>
> In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has 
> determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many 
> civil society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to 
> engage at this time.
>
> For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you 
> must complete the form which can be found at 
> https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together 
> with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that 
> CSCG will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as 
> outlined in the letter below.
>
> Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely 
> expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the 
> organisers outlining CSCG’s position and involvement.
>
> LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL
>
> Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi,
>
> As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group 
> (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in 
> working with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s 
> participation in the NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by 
> accommodating our expectation, drawn from the NETmundial Principles, 
> that if we are to participate on the Coordination Council, we should 
> nominate our own representatives.
>
> Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting 
> with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail 
> itself of this opportunity at all.  We must say that this has been a 
> difficult question, at the end of which there remain some very 
> significant misgivings across a broad segment of civil society about 
> the merits of our prospective involvement.
>
> Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the 
> World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic 
> and political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; 
> that the Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that 
> privileges its three promoters above other stakeholders; and that 
> devoting time and resources to the Initiative may detract from other 
> processes such as the Internet Governance Forum.
>
> On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for 
> civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism 
> (but not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. 
> Despite significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder 
> Statement stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards 
> the end of the process, much of the document, including the roadmap, 
> does enjoy broad civil society support.
>
> OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS
>
> In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from 
> civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination 
> Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of 
> principle that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather 
> that civil society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and 
> respect that our colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that 
> position and will not be participating with us in this exercise.
>
> The process we have agreed to work with is
>
> 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review 
> all nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each 
> candidate’s suitability.
>
> 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and 
> submits names to Transitional Council with reasons.
>
> 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) 
> meeting with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to 
> reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our 
> nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area 
> of civil society they may also be invited to participate after discussion.
>
> CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
>
> Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising 
> partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst 
> those who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, 
> we also outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives 
> are likely to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination 
> Council:
>
> 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, 
> WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination 
> Council and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the 
> above organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of 
> the Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are 
> not convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for 
> such a role, and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself 
> should approve any permanent seats and what that implies.
>
> 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council 
> is "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to 
> point out that the status quo in Internet governance does not 
> represent the fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative 
> should not be used to legitimise existing inequalities and 
> deficiencies of the present system and should not hold civil society 
> back from advocating necessary reforms.
>
> 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial 
> Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive 
> statement of Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement 
> itself acknowledges that it is only a work in progress. So we do not 
> see the NETmundial roadmap as an immutable document. We look forward 
> to its refinement and/or augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a 
> bottom up collaborative process to undertake this work.
>
> 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be 
> the extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet 
> Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for 
> general multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If 
> the IGF develops the capacity to assume further activities that 
> currently might not fall within their capabilities, this should be 
> facilitated, not opposed.
>
> 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement 
> is providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies.
>
> We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted 
> with these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to 
> select a balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society 
> nominees to join the Coordination Council.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council *
>
> **
>
> *Participating member coalitions*
>
> Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia 
> Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director
>
> Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member
>
> Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet 
> Governance Programmes
>
> Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, 
> Co-Coordinator
>
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin 
> Gross, NCSG Executive Committee
>
> Ian Peter, Independent Chair
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141126/aa1b4e2b/attachment.htm>