[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Jean-Christophe Nothias
jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com
Thu Nov 20 06:51:43 EST 2014
Dear Nnenna,
Thanks for calling in Mandela. Though, one reflection.
Mandela worked with his enemies for dozens of years from his cell in jail, then entered the government of De Klerk, joining a government of national coalition with his enemies. Wait, wait, this is not what happened.
He stood up right in his boots, until the power had to admit, with no other choice, that they had to transfer power to him and the majority of the People behind him, in respect of a democratic principle.
Mandela never compromised himself with what he was combatting. He never gave up on his principles. Even though he called for non violence after he came to power be non violent, he would have to admit that violence helped his compatriots to resist the state violence by the South African apartheid machinery. Turning off the electricity grid in part of South Africa was not a friendly project in the eyes of de Klerk.
Coming back to civil society today, instead of jumping in any bed where some money is expected, some illusion is awaiting for being turned into deception, some vain legitimization of an odd process is given away, or some ridiculous recognition is granted ("now we are part of the WEF circles"), we, civil society should stay in jail until the power comes and states that yes let's discuss the needed shift. That is what did Mandela. He did not compromised by going too early where he had nothing to gain - anything like a ministerial portfolio or any such sweeties - or anything to lose -for example faith people put into him to change through political means the situation in that country. Mandela was not sponsored by a group of corporations right? So please let's take a little distance to what is happening right now. Look at what is on the table : one single government that has interest to enter more of its product in the US, one ICANN who is under siege, and the WEF that is looking for more sponsors. Unity is key Nnenna. The current owners of the Internet know that perfectly well and civil society is losing its ethics. Failing, again and again. When did Mandela tried to give it a shot at the Apartheid regime? (not meaning that the asymmetry equates apartheid, but it is a serious global concern).
Yesterday I had the pleasure to meet and talk to Richard Sammans (WEF) at the GIP conference by Diplo. He was at the White House during in the mid-nineties when Al Gore and the Clinton administration decided that the Internet was a critical element of economic domination. Al Gore made his industrial fortune at the times. Ira Magaziner did the job to overtake the root management out of academics hands, with the help of a few insiders such as Vint Cerf and a few others, we all know about that. One casuality: Jon Postel, and one victory: total asymmetry since then on the Internet public policy level. Sammans is a very smart and brilliant product of these years, and it was really nice talking to him. His experience at the Green Fund is of great interest (among other things, how to secure investment in green economy, keeping royalties for property rights to funders). When I mentioned the idea of preferably funding the IGF, he was not rejecting the idea. He said they had been thinking about it. This is something civil society can start discussing with the WEF, even without bringing legitimacy to the high-jacking the NetMundial final paper - I am still waiting to see what are the concrete consequences of that paper, apart from what is going on with the WEF/ICANN/CGIbr. The latter initiative has nothing to do with an invitation to civil society to have a tribune at the next Davos to express their concern. I would find really impressive to have Assange or Snowden invited to Davos next year to engage the transnational business community about the risk that such US policy brings to the world in terms of threat to their own benefits. But this is not what the initiative is about. This initiative is a clear signal that ICANN is feeling the pressure, and I believe Fadi should have another strategy to engage with civil society than simply offering them to go to bed with WEF. It is about the hot potato that ICANN, since Rousseff UN speech, has to deal with on behalf of the US: how to cool down some head of states because their personal privacy was violated... So I cannot imagine that you are suggesting us to contribute to calm down any voice that is standing in front of what is not tolerable by going into that initiative. We agree here, I am convinced.
What I also believe is that this initiative is taking our eyes away from other serious concerns. We at JNC do understand that the new authority created by Bob Kahn, DONA (for Digital Object Naming Authority) is a new critical object of Internet Public Policy - the next stage for the Internet to transform our societies. Interestingly enough this DONA was not created under a Californian/US law setting, like ICANN and IANA, or ISOC and IETF. Bob Khan told me that governments around the world simply told him that they would not use his system of naming objects if it was a US entity. This DONA is about the future Internet of Things: any thought from civil society on this? Therefore this DONA is now a Swiss Foundation, incorporated in January 2014. I can only but imagine that everyone in these lists is curious to learn more about how this foundation will function. I asked Bob Kahn about the similarity between the first IANA and this DONA. I keep his answer for my next Huffington Post.
I invite you to reflect on what should we expect from such an initiative by ICANN, as did Anriette, or Anja who have had some very good questions. We at JNC analyzed that this exploration was leading nowhere, and a dangerous slop, but I do respect efforts by those trying to explore a possible positive way forward into that initiative. I still encourage civil society to look after alternative initiatives (getting together?) (calling for a slot at the next DAVOS, with full liberty of expression) and set their own agenda, instead of trying to accommodate other's. The IGF is still the best bet for civil society with all its flaws and difficulties. There might be some progress there, and victories for civil society, if united. We should be no one little dog.
JC
(sorry for cross postings)
Le 20 nov. 2014 à 09:04, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit :
> +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 africa
> anriette at apc.org
> www.apc.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20141120/422a7b28/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