[governance] WEF's NetMundial Initiative and civil society
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Aug 17 00:35:23 EDT 2014
Not responding to Ian who is basically telling us not to do anything ,
which is very fine with me, since my organisation and networks in any
case did not approve of the NetMundial process very much, as it finally
ended up. And so if it is now headed rather more clearly and visibly to
what we have been saying it is leaning towards (corporate capture) we
can simply say - did we not tell you! However painful for us it is to
say so.
I will here just point to the fact, about which much blindness is being
practised - that the WEF initiative is but an obvious effort to scuttle
and undermine the WSIS plus 10 process. After US and its allies tried
their best inside the UN to prevent a high level plus 10 review, which
they could not because it is mandated in the Tunis agenda, it is now up
to their lackeys in the private sector and the so called techncial
sector (ICANN) to take forward the dirty tricks work - to do just
everything to prevent a more democratic addressing of the global
Internet policy issues, which to almost everyone's mind are becoming
more and more serious by the day. And civil society is playing along......
Meanwhile, do remember (and a lot of effort is being put to forget that
fact) that developing countries had been asking for a full fledged WSIS
review process on the same lines as the original WSIS, with prepcoms and
all (this was repeatedly stated in G 77 draft resolution for WSIS 10
review) . Once it were mandated so by th Gen Assembly, we could have
sought and perhaps got even better participation methods beyond WSIS
(which was itself highly participatoy) by some on the floor tactics (as
we did in the original WSIS). But I do not understand why civil society
positions always seem to go with that of the US in such forums. In any
case, after trying not to allow any high level review at all, the
developed countires then managed to box the review process into as
limited a space and time as possible, in NY (and Not Geneva, mind it)
*/which is primarily responsible for making the participatory processes
around it so poor./* But the fun is, civil society now joins the US and
its allies to again blame the developing countries for this outcome that
WSIS plus 10 will not be as participatory as WSIS was. (Developing
countries do not have the time, resources or skills to confront such
propaganda, and so it goes on..) . Just how powerful some people are...
And now since the developed countries have screwed up WSIS plus 10 and
its participatory processes - so would the spiel go - the real processes
have to work outside the UN system. That is what the new NetMundial
Initiative is supposed to be, now under the powerful arua and resources
of the WEF .... But we can keep taking about trifles and the good
intention of all people. Good to keep civil society occupied.
parminder
On Sunday 17 August 2014 02:51 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 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 <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 9:56 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto: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 <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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140817/34d841dc/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