[bestbits] IMPORTANT: World Economic Forum and The-Initiative-Formerly-Known-As-NETmundial

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On Sep 5, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
> Glad to see the clarification on the role if the committee here. I think ideally, the committee should not have attended the meeting, but should have passed on the invitation to the CS people who participated in the earlier meeting, who could have then passed on the relevant details to all of us, and we could have deliberated on the whether question following that. The CSCG was put into place simply to make nominations for processes we have already agreed that we want to get involved in, and unless otherwise agreed by the wider networks involved in it, should stick to that role in my opinion. 
> 

I agree on keeping CSCG to its limited role.  However the meeting in Istanbul from which I reported back was not the sort of meeting that could usefully have been left to the CS people who participated in the Geneva meeting, because it was called to answer specific questions that the CSCG had been asked by its constituents about how its very role might be exercised in this case (eg. how many nominees there would be, what deadline the WEF would set, etc).  Although in Geneva, and by subsequent phone call to Ian, the WEF had agreed in principle to a CSCG nomination process, it had not descended into that level of detail.  The meeting wasn't in substitution for or exclusion of other meetings that the CS people who participated in the earlier meeting could also have had (and indeed some of them have had) with WEF and Fadi.

> On the actual question of whether we should put forward representatives collectively: I think we should not, as this gives a multistakeholder veneer to a process that isn't (and when I say 'multistakeholder', I think of a process that very clearly adheres to the IG principles outlined in the NETmundial outcome document). It also means that we give legitimacy to the WEF as a venue to unite us all, which I don't want to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean, though, that I think civil society shouldn't be part of this. I would be happy for organisations already involved in this, if they are ready, to continue their work, including of informing us all, which I think they have done well and which I have greatly appreciated.
> 


This is one of those cases in which not making a decision about civil society participation is making a decision about civil society participation - it's effectively deciding that representatives from Human Rights Watch, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and Access - all North-based - were appropriately chosen by the WEF to take part in this initiative.  So if that's acceptable, all well and good - obviously I have no personal interest in disagreeing, given that I'm one of those privileged few.  But just flagging (am I channeling Parminder for a change?) that not taking a decision on this is taking a decision on it.

-- 
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 ::

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140906/70397bcf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140906/70397bcf/attachment.sig>