[governance] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Guru
Guru at ITforChange.net
Wed Nov 19 02:36:13 EST 2014
apologies for cross posting
regards
Guru
for those inclined to participate in the NMI (and according legitimacy
to a power group, and perhaps as Ian points as a possible danger 'a
corporate takeover of internet governance '), I would point to
http://www.nationofchange.org/2014/11/17/sordid-tales-selfishness-super-rich
and many similar articles on that site...
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative
- RFC
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:59:51 +0530
From: Guru <Guru at ITforChange.net>
Reply-To: Guru <Guru at ITforChange.net>
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Often we seem to be saying that participation is sufficient end in itself
for what purpose
for whose gain
who do we represent in our participation
who will lose by the participation
who holds the power in the participation forum/ makes the rules of the game
how much can we fool ourselves about the power we have in the forum
These questions are extremely important to engage with.
On the other hand, we can only wake up those who are sleeping (and
hopefully there are many who may wake up at this point - of a
neo-liberal attempt to capture of global governance), not those who
pretend to be....
regards
Guru
On Wednesday 19 November 2014 02:50 AM, Grace Githaiga wrote:
> I would go for CS to participate if the request to conduct own
> nominations for representation is accepted. It is easier to
> shape/influence processes if we are part of them.
>
> Rgds
> Grace
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> To: jmalcolm at eff.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:31:17 +1100
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial
> Initiative - RFC
>
> At this point of time discussions are going on in a number of forums
> as regards participation, not just here; and it would be helpful if
> the debate was about whether to participate or not, not about who said
> what when.
> As an aid to this, and perhaps to focus discussion a little, here is a
> brief summary of some of the arguments for and against that I have
> seen advanced. Not a complete list, but perhaps this might help some
> people to understand that other people have perspectives that differ
> from their own. i would urge people to add their own perspectives to
> these so that an informed decision is made.
>
> FOR INVOLVEMENT
>
> With ITU a governments only forum and no real will to change, and IGF
> as a forum with no power to make recommendations or take decisions and
> again no will to change, there is no credible venue to initiate action
> on non technical issues or issues not within the remit of Istar
> organisations These would include surveillance issues, human rights
> issues, net neutrality issues, to name a few.
>
> The solid commitment to NetMundial principles promised, if carried out
> in practice, would create a credible and open initiative
>
> There is a need fora representative forum capable of moving us forward
> on a range of issues not covered by existing institutions
>
> Participation is strongly supported by some sections of civil society
>
> AGAINST INVOLVEMENT
>
> The last thing we need is a corporate takeover of internet governance
> and this could become that
>
> ISOC has withdrawn
>
> Participation is strongly opposed by some sections of civil society
>
> This initiative has a track record of poor communication
>
> Ian Peter
>
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:53 PM
> *To:* Best Bits <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* [bestbits] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative
> - RFC
> By now everyone will have read from previous threads that ISOC and the
> Just Net Coalition (JNC) have both decided not to participate in the
> NETmundial Initiative, and you may have also have read some false
> information that Best Bits and other networks represented on the Civil
> Society Coordination Group (CSCG) *have* decided to participate. As
> Ian Peter's clarifying message setting out the truth of the matter
> should have made clear, that is *not* the case. All that has happened
> is that the we have obtained as much assurance as we can that *if* we
> decide to participate, then the Secretariat (ICANN, WEF and CGI.br
> <http://CGI.br>) will accept our self-nomination process rather than
> choosing civil society representatives independently.
> Now we turn to you, our communities, to provide us with guidance about
> whether to proceed further or not. Some views have already been
> expressed pro and con. I have been (and remain) publicly critical
> about the NETmundial Initiative, but on the other hand the reasoning
> ISOC and JNC give for boycotting it is rather specious, because they
> characterise the initiative as being something that it doesn't purport
> to be - ie. a single central policy-making body for Internet
> governance. This is an alarmist critique that turns the NETmundial
> Initiative into an exaggerated ITU-style bogeyman.
> So whilst there is certainly room for disagreement about whether we
> should bestow the benefit of our participation on the Initiative (I
> remain deeply conflicted about this), let's decide on the basis of
> factual pro and con arguments rather than oversimplifications about
> the 1% taking over the Internet. Also note that a few civil society
> representatives, including Human Rights Watch, have endorsed it
> already and are featured on the carousel message on the front page of
> netmundial.org <http://netmundial.org>.
> So what do people think? If you haven't already shared your views,
> please do so on this thread, within the next few days if possible.
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141119/acb4b7f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- 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