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

[arbih2002us at yahoo.com]

I totally agree with Bertrand.  At least something was started.  Still in its infancy but with great prospects for growth. 
Lorin


Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> 
Date: 26/11/2014  18:52  (GMT+01:00) 
To: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council 
 
Very many thanks, Bertrand

What I was confused about is the idea that IGC and BB are now institutions that "want to join" NMI. I have been under the impression that these are Civil Society platforms for action.

My stand has been clear, if there are people who are willing to engage in a certain course (whatever their reasons are) then the platforms should facilitate that. One does not necessarily need to agree all the time with what others are doing.

People should be free to engage
People should be free to disengage
People should be free not to engage

I dont think that there will ever be a time when one person (or a group of persons for that matter) will be able to fully represent all the aspirations of the global civil society.

Nnenna

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Parminder,

I think Ian has managed to express in a very balanced and respectful manner the very diverse perspectives within civil society, including yours (and the JNC), by explicitly mentioning the reservations and the caution with which some people and CS groups accept to engage in the NMI exercise. I think he deserves more credit than what you express in response. 

My understanding of democracy is neither the domination of the majority, nor the veto of a minority. We see too often what this produces at national levels. In the present case, some actors are willing to give it a try after having, I think, carefully pondered the opinions you expressed. It is your full right to disagree but not your right to prevent them from exercising their willing choice or demean them by claiming they have "betrayed the powerless". Only time will tell whether they were wrong or not. 

As a general note, I still fail to see, after several years, whether you want to propose any other mechanism than traditional intergovernmental processes - limited to representatives from governments - as the proper architecture for the democratic Internet governance you desire. If you have other ideas, we are certainly all interested in innovative frameworks that would be different from what is attempted here with the NMI. If not, what place do you see in such purely governmental processes for civil society? None? Or just outside of the room? Tell me if I missed something here. 

More generally, I wonder what makes you have faith in the capacity of purely intergovernmental fora to achieve progress in the absence of sufficient agreement among all governments? In the past ten years, such fora have hardly produced anything more than copy and paste of various paragraphs of the WSIS documents (I know from experience, having contributed to several of CSTD drafting exercises, for instance). 

The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do not have universal membership. 

We need solutions for key issues and we currently do not have the proper structures and processes to address them. The NETmundial Initiative is certainly not perfect, but it is at least an effort to keep the momentum produced by he Sao Paulo event and it does not pretend to have a monopoly. Nobody prevents anyone from initiating competing efforts. But doing nothing does not seem a viable or valuable option. 

Respectfully

Bertrand





"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes", Antoine de Saint Exupéry
("There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE
Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director
email bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net
email bdelachapelle at gmail.com
twitter @IJurisdiction | @bdelachapelle
mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
www.internetjurisdiction.net


On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

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 a paradigm shift and a historic day for 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 Coordi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141128/37321652/attachment.htm>