[governance] WEF's NetMundial Initiative and civil society
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Sat Aug 16 17:21:25 EDT 2014
From a personal perspective -
I was also annoyed at the use of netmundial as a brand by WEF – their letterhead on the leaked documents shows netmundial.org as a document footer on World Economic Forum letterhead.
I asked about this with no reply, and a whois search reveals a private owner of netmundial.org. However, given its existence and historical use prior to the Brazilian event, it would appear that the domain name is owned by ICANN. It would therefore seem that ICANN allowed WEF use of the name.
I would be keen to know the conditions (if any) attached to this use. I would also think that perhaps the original netmundial site (netmundial.br) should be watching this closely and reacting if the brand is compromised. As far as I can see netmundial.br is not ICANN property.
In any case; at this stage the WEF initiative is to bring together some people to form an initiative – it is not announcing WEF or the meeting attendees as the NetMundial initiative, but a group of people discussing how to form such an initiative.
If CS withdraws, people will claim that CS was represented anyway, given that in that category the meeting organisers include (erroneously) ISOC, technical community reps, and UN officials. They will just say a radical fringe withdrew.
So, much though I think the representation is unbalanced, and much though I think the use of the term netmundial by WEF should be strongly challenged, I think the best approach to dealing with this is for the (very few) CS reps to attend and say this strongly, pointing forcefully to the netmundial principles including transparency and inclusiveness, and insisting that these be followed in any initiative. If there is to be a walkout because the emerging initiative does not take account of these and associated netmundial principles, I think a walkout during the meeting would draw more attention than a boycott beforehand.
What I would actually hope for, and what would be consistent with the multistakeholder beliefs espoused (but not always practiced) by ICANN, USG et al who are key participants of this meeting, would be for WEF to commit funds *with no conditions whatsoever* to an ongoing initiative which ensures inclusiveness, equitable representation for civil society, and looks to develop equitable participation in internet governance. If there was an outcome where such funds were committed to an ongoing initiative without conditions, that could be useful. And it the resulting initiative was formed with the right principles, and carried forward the name netmundial, that would be fine I think. A lot to hope for I know...
But we certainly need something to happen. This years IGC looks like it will be without one of our IGC co ordinators, because of lack of funding. I will not be able to attend for similar reasons, nor will Gunela, organising a disability workshop. I am sure there are many others. The current situation where funding bodies work independently and in an ad hoc manner to fund whoever *they* want to attend IGF etc is problematic in the extreme, and I would welcome some independent funding source that could transparently support diverse and representative CS participation in such events. Otherwise multistakeholder is meaningless.
Ian Peter
From: parminder
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:56 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] WEF's NetMundial Initiative and civil society
Let me try and put down my views on the World Economic Forum's NetMundial Initiative 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, 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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/20140817/f1fd007e/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list