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

[Seth Johnson]

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 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.

Not really. It doesn't actually mean that. Both sets of people (and
apparently most looking on) simply hold that the WEF thing is
"extraneous." They really didn't want to be that, but they've been
pegged as such. All that you were really doing is letting us all know
what they were up to.  Keep in mind, the whole WSIS process is about
engaging stakeholders in a process that projects validation in the
form of participation.  This isn't the usual thing where bigwigs
operate internationally and get their way because of corporate status
and executive branch independence in the international arena.  It's an
attempt to construct pieces of an international structure that will
have a greater "legitimacy" through "multistakeholderism." They sought
to extend Netmundial to add a few things to that validation process,
and you kept them (all parties) from doing that.  This happens to be
an instance where staking your ground on these principles does the
whole thing you needed. It's done.

The real question is only when they will try again, and how.  Right
now, whatever they do is outside the process constructed to create
legitimacy.  It's standard international machinations, not really this
"multistakeholder" concoction.  So just watch what they're up to and
be glad they didn't get to go ahead, precisely because you all piped
up.  That's it.

But it doesn't mean WEF was "legitimate" in selecting those they did
-- WEF is just not "legitimate" in relation to the overall WSIS
"multistakeholder" concoction. Even if it's Fadi and ICANN. He didn't
accomplish it.  Period.

They're still bigwigs doing that creepy international stuff. You just
averted it gaining the extra "grounding" they sought.

:-)

> 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 ::
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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