[bestbits] [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1

Babatope Soremi babatope at gmail.com
Thu May 1 16:34:09 EDT 2014 

Hi all
An ecosystem depends on all its parts for the good of all in a sustainable
manner.

The onus is on CS to keep engaging & talking on these issues without
walking away. Knowing certain stakeholders & vested interest, the goal is
to show that by collaboratively working to agree on thorny issues like
right to privacy, security, FoE et al everyone truly benefits.

Walking away from the process only means we all are 'poorer'

On 1 May 2014 21:09, "Stephanie Perrin  <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
wro
> Exactly!
> SP
> On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. For
instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When you get
support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) you can at least
leave the event with assurance that your voice was heard (and not when you
make the noise in isolation)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence:
 However I think we should remember that civil society without support from
others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream
that could be far from reality.
>>> By support, I meant actually cooperation.  IN a multi-stakeholder
process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you
actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your
collective endeavour.  That is what I meant.  Civil Society cannot do this
alone.  They will achieve little without partners.  I was actually not
referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my
apologies.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Stephanie
>>>
>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for your answer and interest,
>>>>
>>>> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to
the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue
over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could
endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the
host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one
else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the
musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned
with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that
first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors
and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to?
>>>>
>>>> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the
success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be
seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume
we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and
some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be
envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have
an open debate over different eco-systems?
>>>>
>>>> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message.
>>>>
>>>> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to
put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for
correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are
referring to.
>>>>
>>>> JC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> +1  A welcome reminder of reality.
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail
is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without
support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is
just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been
such a dream if it did not receive support from the host.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and
"threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our
acts should not lean towards being  independent but rather towards
collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet
democracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" <
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain.
What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each
participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--...
>>>>>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces
is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare
speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now.
>>>>>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less
divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of
any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS.
Am I amazed?
>>>>>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and
common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am
among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to
CS division.  from that when we read comments from all over
>>>>>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final
outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the
overall flaw process - from the very beginning.
>>>>>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline?
>>>>>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any
serious objective
>>>>>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS
participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in
Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to
be addressed.
>>>>>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode,
when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and
un-solved.
>>>>>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that
all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an
ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and
there, like in the old colonial times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome
document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes;
if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different
venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come
to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious
power in the game. It is not the case today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to
bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common
stance. JNC will keep growing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't
the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out
of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions
of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to
the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has
been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from
diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and
multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and
a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair
would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even
mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can
do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the
monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation.
One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over
the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the
CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full
eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN
is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet -  so far it
was supposed to care only about naming and addressing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major
concern)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened
to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be
welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Post-scriptum:
>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system
for the Internet governance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This
would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo
alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond).
Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a
four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in
between.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models
>>>>>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a
>>>>>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such
>>>>>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to
>>>>>>>> maintain any momentum.  If you had said 2015 (and succeeding
>>>>>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in
>>>>>>>> agreement.  It would seem to me that indicating today the plan
>>>>>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out
>>>>>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform
>>>>>>>> that we've just very successfully created.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Seun Ojedeji,
>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>>
>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140501/55d4f5a8/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