[bestbits] [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1
Hartmut Richard Glaser
glaser at cgi.br
Thu May 1 17:36:19 EDT 2014
Dear All,
To avoid any misunderstanding, the financial support in Brazil for
NETmundial was NOT from government, but
was from CGI.br, a non-for-profit multistakeholder entity.
best
Hartmut Glaser
====================================
On 01/05/14 17:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Exactly!
> SP
> On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-next-best-stage-for-the-future-of-internet-governance-is-democracy/305> 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
>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>> //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>> <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>/
>>
>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140501/0d74ff68/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