[governance] WEF's NetMundial Initiative and civil society
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sun Aug 17 13:12:31 EDT 2014
There have been many good and useful things said on this list, and the
1net list. I wanted to respond to some; I will try to be brief and
round them all up here, ccing the folks on the 1net list whom I wish to
respond to, not knowing whether others on this list want their views shared.
1. I tend to agree with Nnenna's comment last week that moving forward
is better than going in circles. However, the fact that she cannot
attend the August meeting yet is listed is troubling. Tick box checked,
African civil society person invited. The fact that the visa is a
problem is also, I think, a matter we should try and fix. As a spoiled
westerner, I must confess I was shocked at the discussion about the
hassles of getting visas for IGF. Surely host countries of Internet
governance and ICANN meetings can do better, in terms of streamlining
the visa process? IF not, it makes a mockery of the multi-stakeholder
process that is supposed to be embracing developing countries. I was
surprised to learn that when Toronto hosted the ICANN meeting a couple
of years ago, many people could not get visas, and if anyone can give me
further details on that, I would like to be enlightened. I know we
could not get one of our experts on the EWG into Buenos Aires for that
ICANN meeting last year, and I am sure there are many other examples. I
see this as a problem that needs fixing, and yes I understand the
sovereign rights of states, which is why fixing it could take time and
serious effort. Necessary if we are not to be hypocritical though. I
will refrain from breaking into a separate rant about free trade without
free movement of people.
2. I must confess a bias against Davos and the WEF. I have never been,
but I have seen folks in both public and private sector who went, coming
back with a glitter in their eyes indicating a sense of their own
importance in global governance that I regard as worrisome. Perhaps it
is the altitude, but I suspect it is the sense of exclusiveness. This
is not the spirit we want for global internet governance. I make no
apology for sounding like a Puritan.
3. Re WSIS....I might not go so far as Parminder does, but I think he
has a point. Those who go to the Netmundial meeting in August must be
very careful to re-steer the ship towards open, fair, multi-stakeholder
processes. The Brazilian Netmundial was not perfect, but our hosts
worked very hard, trying very hard, to manage the politics and be
inclusive (here, of course, I am disagreeing with Parminder's
conclusions about that meeting). I think it was a real step forward and
we must ensure we don't step backwards. RE Parminder's last line, which
I think bears repetition..../Good to keep civil society occupied..../I
think this is a very real issue/risk. I cannot keep up with the number
of processes going on, things to read and comment on, etc. Every minute
spent on that is a minute not spent on fixing a tangible problem (eg.
Visas, long term funding for IGF, lobbying government to pitch in and
take a stand on a few key issues, locating new and young talent to get
engaged, writing a new privacy policy for ICANN, developing a plan for
anonymous domain registration, etc etc.) All these meetings in exotic
places must be assessed re outcomes, or we are wasting our time.
Meetings in exotic places (being puritanical again) cannot become the
golden apples that Hippomenes used to divert Atalanta and win the
race...having said that, I am very encouraged to see who is going, and I
am sure that this tiny crew will represent us nobly.
Stephanie Perrin
On 14-08-17 12:35 AM, parminder wrote:
> 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/20140817/7a25b821/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