[governance] PINGO

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Disappointment is not rejection.

Though Niel's impromptu declaration was a well delivered statement of
what more is needed.  Things we can either work on, or we continue to
curse the past about.

cheers

avri


On 13-May-14 04:05, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 
>> I can not find in the transcripts any statement - with the exception
>> of the four governments I mentioned in my article - which expressed
>> formal reservations against the document.
> 
> In
> http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETMundial-23April2014-Closing-Session-en.pdf
> you can find the following statement:
> 
> 
> """
> NIELS TEN OEVER:   
> 
> We  would  like  to  thank  the  Brazilian  government  for
> organizing  the global  multistakeholder  meeting  on  the  future  of
> Internet  governance. We,  as  a  diverse  group  of  civil  society
> organizations  from  around  the world,  appreciate  having  been
> part  of  the  process.    However,  we  are disappointed because the
> outcome document fails to adequately reflect a number of our key
> concerns.
> 
> The  lack  of  acknowledgment  of  net  neutrality  at  NETmundial  is
> deeply disappointing.    Mass  surveillance  has  not  been
> sufficiently  denounced as  being  inconsistent  with  human  rights
> and  the  principle  of proportionality. 
>   
> And although the addition of language on Internet intermediary
> liability is welcomed, the final text fails to ensure due process
> safeguards which could  undermine  the  rights  to  freedom  of
> expression  and  right to privacy.   
>   
> We  feel  that  this  document  has  not  sufficiently  moved  us
> beyond  a status  quo  in  terms  of  the  protection  of  fundamental
> rights  and  the balancing  of  power  and  influence  of  different
> stakeholder  groups. Thank you. 
> """
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  I know that a number of
>> civil society organisations and also other stakeholders from the
>> private sector, governments and technical community were not
>> satisfied with parts of the document. But to be "not satisfied"  is
>> different from "formal reservations/opposition". In a
>> multistakeholder process it is more or less unavoidable that "nobody
>> is satisfied". To reach rough consensus means that there are many
>> parties which did not get what they wanted. Otherwise it would be
>> "full consensus". And it was very obvious that there was no full
>> consensus for the NetMundial outcome document. Nevertheless, the Sao
>> Paulo declaration has a special meaning. Basic elements - as the
>> principles which are very balanced and represent to a high degree
>> civil society values - got the support of the majority of all present
>> stakeholders. This is, as I said, remarkable and new, compared to the
>> previous documents which were limited in scope and support. The
>> "limitations" are also relevant for the very interesting document
>> adopted by the Council of the European Union (this is not the EU
>> Commission and also not the Council of Europe). This is a document
>> supported by the 27 member states of the EU. I have my doubts,
>> whether the 193+ governments of the UN member states would support
>> this document. Net Mundial was not the end of the discussion, in
>> particular with regard to the Roadmap. It is very good that we get
>> now more input into a the roadmap process which will lead us into the
>> year 2020 and beyond. And the new EU council paper is a very
>> substantial input. As a European I would be happy if governments from
>> non-European countries would take this document as inspiration. I
>> also recommend, that non-governmental stakeholders take this EU
>> Council document as a serious contribution, in particular with regard
>> to the respect for human rights. BTW, all EU member states are also
>> members of the OECD and do also support the OECD Principles for
>> Internet Policy making, which were opposed by CISAC (at least two
>> principles). If you compare the two questionable OECD principles with
>> Net Mundial than NetMundial looks much better from a civil society
>> perspective. Best wishes wolfgang 
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
>> Gesendet: Mo 12.05.2014 17:32
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] PINGO
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 11 May 2014 02:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>  
>>> here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles
>>> of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. 
>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/
>>
>> To quote your paper
>>
>> "And this document is supported by the majority of governments, by the
>> most recognized and respected leaders from the private sector, the
>> gurus of the technical community and a broad range of civil society
>> organizations."
>>
>> Wolfgang, can you show evidence to the effect that NetMundial document
>> is supported by a majority of world's governments. This is apart from
>> the fact that a very large number of civil society organisations
>> present at NetMundial opposed the outcome document, and I can tell
>> you, an even greater number outside oppose it.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>>  
>>> wolfgang
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

-------------- 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