[governance] WEF's NetMundial Initiative and civil society

Sat Aug 16 07:56:03 EDT 2014

Let me try and put down my views on the World Economic Forum's 
NetMundial Initiative <http://t.co/xUxOf0AvLl> being launched in Geneva 
on 28th of Aug, of which quite a number of people here seem to be a part 
of, in one way or the other.

1. On the face of it, one does not have any problem with the World 
Economic Forum (WEF) undertaking an initiative on global Internet 
governance. They have initiatives and reports on practically everything 
under the sun. And it is not that WEF havent  had an initiative on IG 
ever before. They had for instance the 'Global Agenda Council on the 
Future of the Internet'. We could pass by another WEF initiative on IG 
without major attention or alarm. Although, overall most progressive 
actors globally remain considerably worried by the new global political 
assertion by the richest and the most powerful people in the world 
through the form and agency of the WEF and its outputs. But that larger 
concern is less of an issue here.

2. Organisations and networks that I work with had expressed 
dis-satisfaction with the NetMundial process and outcomes. However, 
there are a larger number of civil society persons and groups who 
considered NetMundial just about what the doctor ordered, and have since 
been celebrating NetMundial as the way to go forward with regard to 
global Internet governance. Now, the surprise and the question is: when 
these civil society actors who have shown such deep commitment to 
NetMundial event and process as the ideal - or close by, received word 
on the WEF's taking over of the NetMundial process, /*why did they not 
simply and strongly CRY FOUL*/... Why did they not just say, this is not 
acceptable. You guys cannot highjack and run away with the brand of 
NetMundial. We own it 'together'. It was never supposed to be a forum 
led and guided by the richest and the most powerful of the world, and so 
on... And tell them to just back off. And tell them that they can forget 
any cooperation, much less, attendance, from any civil society person or 
group. Surely 'we ourselves' would in no way whatsoever lend any 
legitimacy to this process - forget about attending the meeting.

3. But I see nothing of such a kind. (In fact, very unfortunately we got 
to hear about this initiative through online leaks.) Yes, a feeble 
protestation and lament or two, with others not even doing that and 
giving all the benefit of doubt to WEF and ICANN and whoever is behind 
it, of all the possible good intentions. If only, civil society groups 
and persons have reacted as I lay out above, /*this process could have 
been stopped in its tracks*/. '/They/' need to have civil society play 
along, for the masquerade of multistakeholderism covering status quo 
power structures to work. Unfortunately, our civil society leaders never 
seem to show the strength of character, and leverage our collective 
strength which if properly used can be such strong force in shaping 
global IG regimes. We seem always so eager to give in. Lets be good, and 
trust other people's good intention! We failed to speak up when ICANN 
(at US's behest) so completely took over the Brazil meeting, and threw 
civil society's (direct) representational claims aside; we stood quite 
when 'they' foisted on us a civil society 'leader' at the Brazil meeting 
; and we whimpered and pulled back again when 'they' ran away with what 
they wanted from the NetMundial outcome documents. Civil society always 
gives in. It was not supposed to be list this.

4. What will happen next? Yes, the civil society participants at the WEF 
meeting will certainly say; no, this, is not the right way to do things. 
And 'they' will say, sorry, we did not mean to hurt you. We can always 
figure out the right way. And some concessions will be thrown civil 
society's way, like: ok, we will allow you to choose your reps (and then 
some groups/ persons will choose one another and be right back, now on 
the behalf of the global civil society), we will have a second phase 
after Feb 2015, which will be so much better (there is always a promised 
second phase, isnt it), and so on. With the hiccups accounted for, 
global IG civil society will again put back its pretty smile, and off it 
would sail, happily hereafter, in the lap of the richest and the most 
powerful, precisely from whom the Internet needs to be saved. But forget 
such petty details! We must celebrate the spirit and actions of 
multistakeholderism and not allow minor issues to come in its way!

But then maybe I am just a niggardly conspiracy theorist, and civil 
society actors here are going to get together and shoot a letter to the 
WEF to the effect that - it is none of their business to
take up leadership of the NetMundial process, and we strongly resent 
efforts to highjack it. The plans for the proposed NetMundial Initiative 
must be shelved immediately, while WEF is welcome to undertake any IG 
initiative under any name that it deems fit, which is not a stolen one. 
In any case, do NOT expect any civil society actor to turn up, or at 
least none of those undersigned are going to be there... May, I suggest 
that we write such a letter from various civil society groups. Because I 
am bored with making up conspiracy theories :)

parminder

On Saturday 16 August 2014 11:23 AM, parminder wrote:
> Tom/ All
>
> A much bigger problem than of allocating technology provided gains 
> between work (along with over consumption) and leisure (with more 
> controlled consumption) is of the allocation between different groups 
> and classes of people, and between different geo-regions. It is a 
> completely inexcusable crime of all those who participate in the 
> management of our societies today that even with such stupendous 
> technology/ productivity gains, about 13 percent of the world's 
> population still goes to bed hungry, and more than 30 percent of the 
> children in developing countries are stunted due to malnourishment (In 
> India, close to 40 percent). Nearly half the world's population lives 
> on less that 2.5 dollars a day.
>
> "The world produces enough food to feed everyone...... the principal 
> underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary operation of 
> the economic and political systems in the world. Essentially control 
> over resources and income is based on military, political and economic 
> power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live 
> well, while those at the bottom barely survive, if they do." 
> http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm 
>
>
> Meanwhile, wealth disparities are rising globally, at most places very 
> rapidly. A recent report says that "the lower half of the global 
> population possesses barely 1% of global wealth, while the richest 10% 
> of adults own 86% of all wealth, and the top 1% account for 46% of the 
> total. " And the concentration of wealth is worsening almost everywhere.
>
> Nice time one would say to attempt to move the locus of global 
> Internet governance to the World Economic Forum 
> <http://t.co/xUxOf0AvLl>, that Mecca of the 1 percent, where 'they' 
> develop blue prints for where the world should go from here. We 
> certainly need their advice and leadership for shaping and governing 
> the global Internet. Power on the Internet isnt already concentrated 
> enough!
>
> One can only congratulate all those involved with the initiative, and 
> those contributing to it!
>
> Poor those who have been trying to occupy places that signified wealth 
> concentration - the occupy movement. It appears that it is the civil 
> society that is getting occupied in reverse. And it is running into 
> the trap gleefully, with open arms.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Saturday 16 August 2014 09:11 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
>> Long ago I thought this problem could be solved by reallocating 
>> resources: The availability of farm machinery has created more food 
>> than we know what to do with; and half of New York seems to be filled 
>> with storage bins filled with the abundance of manufactured goods. 
>> And I thought that people be happy to retire at 30.
>>
>> But assuming an abundance of energy and no environmental limitations, 
>> would I like a 50 year retirement? These days I seem to live for my 
>> work. If some machine takes it away, I'd be left with a diminished life.
>>
>> How important is work to most peoples lives?
>>
>> Yes, I agree with the video, and the clock seems to be ticking.
>>
>> By posting on the governance list are you suggesting that Internet 
>> governance and "technology management" be combined?
>>
>> Tom Lowenhaupt
>>
>>
>> On 8/15/2014 6:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
>>>
>>> So what do we do?
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140816/5327a9b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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