[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Lorena Jaume-Palasi
lorena at collaboratory.de
Thu Nov 20 04:43:07 EST 2014
+1 to Anriette and Wolfgang
2014-11-20 9:04 GMT+01:00 Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>:
> +1000
>
> Nnenna
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I have been fairly silent on this issue and APC is consulting our members
>> about it at present. We have been really busy in APC with project meetings,
>> evaluations, planning, and also the African School on IG, so apologies for
>> not participating.
>>
>> Anja, thanks for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also
>> asked people off list and thus far I get the sense that while there are
>> concerns, there is also a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.
>>
>> I felt that the the letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and
>> I feel that having them in place has put us in a stronger position. I also
>> feel that JNC's decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and
>> clear.
>>
>> I do see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how
>> Ian had put them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and
>> white'.
>>
>> My feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed
>> at the time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have
>> actually been addressed.
>>
>> I don't particularly like the process... I would have liked more
>> transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and its
>> mechanisms.
>>
>> But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, and I believe we
>> should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental spaces, at
>> national level, and through the IGF. This might sound pretty naive to many
>> but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive democratic
>> multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through closer
>> connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and
>> mechanisms.
>>
>> I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be fast.
>>
>> My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI with the
>> following:
>>
>> - a set of indicators and criteriat that are important to us
>> - a limited timeframe
>> - agreed milestones including for a point at which we assess whether we
>> continue or not
>>
>>
>> My proposal would be try and make the process work, and to link it
>> closely to the IGF and for civil society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get
>> together prior to the 2015 IGF and then to assess whether our particpation
>> has had impact, whether we have been able to influence the process and
>> whether it meets the criteria important to us.
>>
>> This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process that turns
>> out not to be worthy of it. But I think it is a risk worth taking, and we
>> can always withdraw.
>>
>> Not trying is a greater risk as it could result in the most progressive,
>> to date, agreement on principles that respect human rights inclusive
>> processes in internet governance simply fizzling out. I think that
>> backtracking in that way on what we all achieved through the NETmundial
>> would be a huge loss to changing how we think about, and implement,
>> internet governance.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> A question. If any of the Brazilians on these lists could perhaps shed
>> some light on why their government has decided to support this initiative,
>> and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I have had great
>> respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help but wonder
>> whether I'm missing something here.
>>
>> For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am still not in favour
>> of civil society networks giving this their stamp of approval (though as
>> earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisations who want
>> to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wider
>> community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian
>> government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power
>> centre in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given
>> themselves some fixed seats.
>>
>> I've in particular been wondering what this selection and committee
>> means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "foster" clearly
>> are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others on this list
>> too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU to give
>> feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be developed
>> under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thing
>> we and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would
>> happen anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the
>> initiatives it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have
>> had without. An unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go
>> ahead without us anyway is something that a representative from the WEF
>> made clear enough to me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the
>> individual initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the
>> structure as a whole, I am not so certain)
>>
>> I would feel far more comfortable if we would instead start exploring
>> the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work suggested by Amelia
>> and others. I would love to hear more about what they're thinking, and how
>> we could operationalize this ourselves and take it forward.
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Governance and Best Bits listers, and especially African Civil
>>> Society members here.
>>>
>>> My opinion is that Civil Society should participate. It is okay to
>>> table our "fears" and let NMI know that our participation may be withdrawn
>>> if XYZ is not met.
>>>
>>> I think it is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I
>>> dont think we should miss out.
>>>
>>> NMI may also just make a public call for CS who wants to participate.
>>> From the launch, I already saw that some CS persons were already very
>>> interested in the NMI.
>>>
>>> I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to
>>> participate but we cannot ask others not to.
>>>
>>> Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at
>>> the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate.
>>>
>>> All for now
>>>
>>> Nnenna
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your email.
>>>>
>>>> Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both
>>>> do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to
>>>> terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics.
>>>>
>>>> Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect
>>>> and impact.
>>>>
>>>> What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or
>>>> participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
>>>> definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks
>>>> more or less like "un chèque en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a
>>>> wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with
>>>> deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind
>>>> all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my
>>>> life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of that
>>>> smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the "génie"
>>>> when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple
>>>> line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such as
>>>> - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US
>>>> refused to discuss mass surveillance?
>>>> - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing
>>>> and growing?
>>>> - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic,
>>>> insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of
>>>> the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo,
>>>> then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has
>>>> nothing to do with IG they told us.
>>>> - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU
>>>> decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that
>>>> search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they
>>>> assembled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS.
>>>> - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important
>>>> than IANA for example?
>>>> - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it
>>>> comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the
>>>> political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to
>>>> have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are
>>>> currently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative
>>>> abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more
>>>> "values".
>>>>
>>>> I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind.
>>>> Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant
>>>> of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame
>>>> JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today.
>>>>
>>>> Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a
>>>> satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their
>>>> arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that
>>>> bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after
>>>> the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest,
>>>> transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their
>>>> committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please
>>>> energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.
>>>>
>>>> So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a
>>>> debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and
>>>> corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live
>>>> in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens,
>>>> we are failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any
>>>> WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are
>>>> taking away our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of
>>>> wasting our time and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of
>>>> the WEF.
>>>>
>>>> Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate.
>>>> JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more
>>>> people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a
>>>> collective action that would oblige governments, corps and the current
>>>> mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes
>>>> to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often
>>>> been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When
>>>> it comes to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply
>>>> doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they
>>>> would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other
>>>> few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work,
>>>> but then it would lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would
>>>> unleash violence.
>>>>
>>>> JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our
>>>> bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no
>>>> barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to
>>>> avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as
>>>> long as we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics.
>>>>
>>>> There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil
>>>> society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we
>>>> should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden
>>>> agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That
>>>> would be fair.
>>>>
>>>> JC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 18 nov. 2014 à 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>>>> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. On
>>>> a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping on
>>>> civil society colleagues" you are referring to,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Within the next few days I’m going to write a separate blog post
>>>> about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC’s pathologies are off-topic
>>>> for this list.
>>>>
>>>> The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen
>>>> to non JNC members:
>>>> - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread
>>>> Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew
>>>> Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB
>>>> Initiative)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.
>>>>
>>>> - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some
>>>> quarters to create a "UN Security Council”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?
>>>>
>>>> - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi
>>>> Chehadé: ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> None of these statements support the characterisation of the
>>>> Initiative as in your letter as “being ’the’ mechanism for global
>>>> [Internet] governance”.
>>>>
>>>> Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC
>>>> statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to
>>>> participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of
>>>> the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of
>>>> what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different
>>>> participants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial Initiative
>>>> (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmundial
>>>> meeting. On this much we agree.
>>>>
>>>> So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ...
>>>> should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen
>>>> in the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN
>>>> and CGIbr.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I
>>>> certainly have (
>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles).
>>>> What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial
>>>> Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other
>>>> civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of
>>>> the Initiative.
>>>>
>>>> Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which
>>>> was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off
>>>> list, two emails in support, as well as one against).
>>>>
>>>> By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now
>>>> because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a
>>>> few hours later. But I write this brief response just because you
>>>> suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I’m not. Anyway,
>>>> others can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me
>>>> monopolising the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> `````````````````````````````````
>> anriette esterhuysen
>> executive director
>> association for progressive communications
>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Global Internet Governance Arbeitsgruppe
Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter
<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE> ∙
Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> ∙ Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> ∙ Youtube
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141120/786b2f43/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