[governance] Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot?

Nick Ashton-Hart nashton at consensus.pro
Sun Oct 13 12:16:37 EDT 2013 

A few months ago Snowden happened, which affected the positions taken by many heads-of-state, including, very clearly, President Rousseff.

As to the idea that NTIA is behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia - I find this not credible at all: why on earth would the USG welcome a head-of-state-led conference on the role of surveillance in society, especially one organised in Brasilia with the active participation of the Brazilian head-of-state? And, if they would welcome it, all they'd have to do is say so publicly: that would get them a lot of positive visibility. Doing it by proxy gets them nothing.

On 13 Oct 2013, at 17:29, " João Carlos R. Caribé " <joao.caribe at me.com> wrote:

> I fully agree with the JFC Morfin, and say more like Brazilian, the initiative come from civil society, understand: 
> 
> Until a few months ago, Dilma had another position, followed the advice of the Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, that follow the agenda of telecom companies. 
> 
> Many activists, including me, and opinion leaders criticized the posture of Paul Bernardo, also we decided to criticize Dilma, since in practice, the adherence to the agenda of telecom companies was the government's position, and not only the ministry.
> 
> Considering the popularity of Rousseff had fallen a lot during the demonstrations in the streets, which were heavily exploited by the opposition to weaken it politically. This new opposition coming from the Internet could be tragic for his project of re-election in 2014.
> 
> After conversation with his predecessor, Lula, Dilma became advised by Franklin Martins, and during this process she met with CGI.Br where she got much of his speech at the UN. This speech that won strong support from the international community, as we know.
> 
> Also we know that ICANN strives to strengthen its multistakeholder model, and thus distance themselves from the image of being an "appendix" of the U.S. government. Realizing the opportunity arose after Rousseff's speech at the UN, Fadi and his counselors come immediately to meet our President to seize this window of opportunity that open.
> 
> And that we have to face, a window of opportunity, we from the civil society have to position ourselves as protagonists behind this "wave", because we know that bad decisions that could change the internet as we know, it may arise, and this time we have to act together and strengthened to rebate.
> 
> My $0,02
> 
> -
> João Carlos Caribé
> (021) 8761 1967
> (021) 4042 7727
> Skype joaocaribe
> Enviado via iPad
> 
> Em 13/10/2013, às 08:49, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> escreveu:
> 
>> At 20:52 11/10/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Valid point Parminder.  
>>>> By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that...
>> 
>> Then ?...
>> 
>> It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN as a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and, therefore, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with her speech. To succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is led by US StakeHolders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather when they call on us in response to our first letter.
>> 
>> If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US, Brazil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it is not) Dilma’s Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector, international organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it will be NTIA's coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with the ITU Dubai-signatories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as a liaison), using all of us. I have nothing against the US "e-colonization" strategy (which is named "internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode; OECD in economy, NATO in military), except that:
>> 
>> - I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital ecosystem because it is based on  1983 architectural  statUS-quo that is to protect a market and political statUS-quo.
>> - I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy. Globalization is a practical fact that raises problems (economic crisis, global warming, etc.). The world's uncontrolled globalization is a pandemic that has to be taken care of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism.
>> - If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA: who would in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH hijacking by ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only with those two?
>> 
>> Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic governance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that the NSA was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a secret agency that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about ours?
>> 
>> Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazil’s President? 
>> 
>> What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian, Malian, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) people’s positions and societal, industrial, and Telcos’ interests? Why don’t we discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization? Why do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few of us? 
>> 
>> This is most probably because a global democracy can only be multilateralistic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a dominance). In our area, this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo that benefits the US and all those having a stake in the US private sector) – actually both as we saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We know that none of them could be sustainable as they would resurrect the cold war. Actually what we should try to work out is a multicultural, multilinguistic, multinational, multistakeholder, open and, therefore, non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal of the democratic ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time.
>> 
>> Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called polycracy. Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while we still try to understand the way they work and discover its best practices, its incompletion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hysteresis) confuse us, pollute everyone’s thinking, and deny all of us the experience that we need.
>> 
>> NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment (statUS-quo). 
>> 
>> Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that there is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for international societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss and word out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in the facts (not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more adequately through the digital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay, and use for and on the net). 
>> 
>> Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have to consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and globally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital extension do we want? How do we achieve and protect it?
>> 
>> A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting ICANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization rights as per the Internet technology (and ICANN’s own documents)? 
>> 
>> Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the circumstances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want to better pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives.
>> 
>> jfc
>> 
>>>> parminder 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote:
>>>>>> Anja +1 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately  will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> R. Guerra
>>>>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
>>>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom 
>>>>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that  we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My two paise,
>>>>>>> Anja
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>> Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is
>>>>>>> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I
>>>>>>> > havent been told the risk - and beyond  a point, just about any
>>>>>>> > political act carries risk.
>>>>>>> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries
>>>>>>> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the
>>>>>>> certainty of losing that opportunity.
>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>> Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>> Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>> Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>>>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in 
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> anriette esterhuysen
>>>>> anriette at apc.org
>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>>>> www.apc.org
>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>>>> south africa
>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726
>>>>> 1692
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen
>>> anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>>> www.apc.org
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726
>>> 1692
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131013/284754f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131013/284754f1/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     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 Governance mailing list