[governance] JNC response to NetMundial

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

I agree ! And add : this response is also interpellating all CS people. Thanks JCN and Norberrt.

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack






> Message du 05/05/14 11:31
> De : "JFC Morfin" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Norbert Bollow" , "IGC" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] JNC response to NetMundial
> 
> Brillant!
> jfc
> 
> At 09:49 05/05/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> >Just Net Coalition has released a response to the NetMundial Outcome
> >Document:
> >
> >http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document
> >
> >Greetings,
> >Norbert
> >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
> >
> >
> >The JNC Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document
> >
> >The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of
> >NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain
> >important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on
> >managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the
> >document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the
> >inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on
> >intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the
> >omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on
> >net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all
> >about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with
> >new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed
> >by different actors in the future.
> >
> >For the Just Net Coalition, "democratic multistakeholder processes for
> >Internet governance" means democratic processes with clear guidelines
> >for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and
> >responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous
> >interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not
> >favour the "equal-footing multi-stakeholder model" and thus a clear
> >departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was
> >proposed in the original draft of the outcome document.
> >
> >While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is
> >worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the
> >meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was
> >made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision
> >making on international issues. This "equal footing multi-stakeholder
> >model" would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big
> >business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we
> >will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose
> >the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy.
> >
> >We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at
> >NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the
> >red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful
> >parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business.
> >In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful
> >interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the
> >point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed
> >norms, such as happened at NetMundial.
> >
> >The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements,
> >particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed
> >"in the public interest". While falling short of the civil society
> >demand for characterizing the Internet as a "global commons” or "public
> >good", it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says
> >that the Internet is "a global facility available to the public and its
> >governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society
> >agenda".
> >
> >We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic
> >multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly
> >foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of
> >networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour
> >the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and
> >more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes
> >must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and
> >private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies.
> >
> >The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic
> >multi-stakeholder model
> >
> >President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue
> >between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final
> >outcome document in the roadmap section accepts "the full involvement
> >of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities" and
> >is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda.
> >The outcome document has further held, "Governments have primary, legal
> >and political accountability for the protection of human rights". The
> >NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda,
> >creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision
> >making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing
> >these new openings wil involve clear definitions and guidelines for the
> >"democratic multistakeholder process" model.
> >
> >NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalising
> >multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of
> >"multistakeholderism in practice" included the seemingly open format of
> >"selecting" the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda
> >setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for
> >contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions
> >and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the
> >initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong
> >contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these
> >could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the
> >delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an
> >appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or
> >alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how
> >multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the
> >fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were
> >flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes
> >themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and
> >that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily
> >dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be
> >viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which
> >ultimately only works for the few?
> >
> >In this regard, we see the reference to "democratic multistakeholder
> >processes" in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now
> >need to spell out what would constitute "democratic multistakeholder
> >processes". This of course includes the NetMundial call for further
> >discussions on "different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in
> >Internet governance" and its two references to "respective roles and
> >responsibilities". This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration
> >of what is a "democratic multistakeholder process" where, of course,
> >corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions
> >regarding public policy issues.
> >
> >The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if
> >public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through
> >democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from
> >citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or
> >institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens
> >they represent.
> >
> >Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and
> >Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
> >(ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct
> >of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or
> >through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes
> >should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such
> >decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations
> >rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in
> >violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR.
> >
> >Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory
> >
> >We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding
> >certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see:
> >http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response.
> >
> >Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible
> >with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and
> >proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down
> >with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly
> >resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we
> >note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have
> >primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human
> >rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and
> >globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global
> >system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments
> >must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own
> >citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their
> >jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global.
> >
> >In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and
> >cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for
> >addressing the issue of cyber-weapons.
> >
> >Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality.
> >Marco Civil ­ the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European
> >parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality.
> >Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to
> >bury net neutrality in the "Future Plans" section of the NetMundial
> >outcome document.
> >
> >Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to
> >copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the
> >text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business
> >representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that
> >new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly
> >there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have
> >been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not
> >validly part of it:
> >
> >First, while references to the "right to access, share, create and
> >distribute information" exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone
> >basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is
> >limited to what is "consistent with the rights of authors and creators
> >as established in law". The right to share and communicate has now been
> >circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to
> >be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators
> >to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international
> >copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative
> >document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the
> >existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our
> >belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must
> >be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that
> >non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made
> >legal.
> >
> >Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations,
> >having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet
> >users, has now been coupled with "private policing" for enforcing
> >Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging
> >"cooperation among all stakeholders" in order to "address and deter
> >illegal activity" which is in fact, well understood as coded language
> >for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other
> >intermediaries.
> >
> >It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to
> >the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the
> >OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago.
> >
> >Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which
> >President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access:
> >i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to
> >respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital
> >economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and
> >re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within
> >countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the
> >outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic
> >justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet
> >and the digital economy.
> >
> >Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition
> >is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the
> >transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US
> >government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it
> >sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions.
> >While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government
> >supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way
> >in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact
> >that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the
> >transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this
> >transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in
> >a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that
> >ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the
> >"open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending
> >beyond the ICANN community" for "discussion about mechanisms for
> >guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions
> >after the US Government role ends.”
> >
> >
> >
> >Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet)
> >
> >May 3, 2014
> >
> >http://JustNetCoalition.org
> >
> >info at JustNetCoalition.org
> >
> >
> >(1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that "everyone can
> >create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling
> >individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in
> >promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of
> >life....".
> >
> >(2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in
> >particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root
> >zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS).
> >
> >(3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is
> >currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with
> >the US government.
> >
> >
> >
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140505/4408491a/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