[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC

[Byoung-il Oh]

I agree!

Byoungil Oh


2014-11-21 0:07 GMT+09:00 Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>:

> I am happy there are no fence sitters. The best solution to end the
> deadlock would be for Civil Society to give it's demands to NMI. Top
> among them being:-
> 1. Have a bottom up  approach
> 2. Include all stakeholders on equal footing. Not setting permanent
> seats for CGI, ICANN, and WEF, then inviting everybody else to share
> the remaining morsels. The current situation looks like carrots are
> being dangled at CS.
> 3. Debate and Redefine the principles and mandate on which NMI is
> build upon with input from all.
>
> Staying totally away from NMI without giving dialogue a chance would
> not help. Through CSCG, we can have a common statement sent out to NMI
> stating our objections and expectations.
>
> Sincerely,
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh
> B: http://lord.me.ke/
> T: twitter.com/lordmwesh
>
> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk
> on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>
>
> On 20 November 2014 02:47, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I do not write often in this list, but, as I made it clear earlier at the
> > closing ceremony of Net Mundial Initiative, I am really concerned at any
> > effort adopting the Net Mundial ¨final¨ outcome as such, as final. Mrs.
> > Rousseff started her crusade as an effort to tackle or at least, somehow,
> > regulate the pervasive surveillance from a group of governments against
> all
> > citizens. The result was a monster, the process was flawed, the language
> > against massive surveillance was weak, the introduction the language to
> > please the copyright lobby really undermined solid, multiyear efforts of
> the
> > copyright reformists, too. Adopting such document, which so far is just
> the
> > result of an event outside the regular events around Internet Governance
> is
> > simply dangerous and silly, because in no way is a big victory for two of
> > the most important battles for the future of our knowledge societies, of
> our
> > free societies. A rigid exam, or even an exam at first sight of the
> outcome
> > document will show that it certainly fails to adopt the highest human
> rights
> > standards.
> >
> > The other issue was participation. As you can see in the brilliant work
> by
> > CIS India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/index.html and the
> attached
> > maps, the voices from the global south, especially the poorest countries
> > from Africa and Latin America, where largely missing in the debates. It
> was
> > a North lead debate. It was a highly specialised debate, but,
> paradoxically,
> > with terrible flaws as there were Internet Governance experts, but,
> except
> > for the very good contributions of privacy experts like Jacob Appelbaum
> and
> > Copyright experts like Mishi, there was a vast lack of expertise, or at
> > least no unity in key demands.
> >
> > So for me, in spite of the good faith of the Brazilians, any effort that
> > will marry with the Net Mundial Final Document as such, as final, is
> flawed
> > and has very little reform or even information potential for Civil
> Society.
> > Because we will not be asking for and promoting the adoption of higher
> but
> > lower standards, because the whole exercise lacks the voices and concerns
> > for the very actors which will be the most affected by the adoption of
> such
> > principles and roadmap as the one forward and because, again, very few of
> > those who are not represented will be able to afford the time and
> resources
> > that such initiative demands. So it will be again, a conversation among
> few.
> >
> > There is also the public v. private interest here, but that issue has
> been
> > discussed extensively. My concern is basically the legitimacy we are
> giving
> > to such disastrous outcome, reaching and promoting a new low.
> >
> > * This is a personal opinion and in no way reflects the opinion or
> position
> > of the Web Foundation.
> >
> > Renata
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> > Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jeanette,
> >>
> >> Thanks for sharing Anja's skepticism. But Anja has expressed, more
> >> importantly in my opinion, precise questions and given detailed
> information
> >> that ignited her skepticism. Where are the answers to her questions?
> >> Anriette has made suggestions: where are the reactions? Talking about
> >> relevant actors: is WEF a relevant actor? WEF is a network of
> corporations,
> >> big ones. Shouldn't civil society engage instead the smaller
> entrepreneurs,
> >> who creates much more jobs that the WEF membership? What is the
> criteria to
> >> say that it is worth to engage WEF rather than other groupings? WEF has
> a
> >> high media added-value. I agree, but then just ask for a tribune in
> Davos,
> >> to start with.
> >>
> >> You question the qualified and trustworthy candidates, fine, but you
> >> totally ignore to answer the pending questions by many of us: what is
> this
> >> all about? Is this process worth the effort and, if NUY lab is already
> >> elaborating the written conclusions of the initiative, do we need to
> bother
> >> to write the conclusions of it with any qualified and trustworthy
> candidate.
> >> If so, you should revise your judgement and buy the argument (no
> copyright
> >> on this!) that those who are willing to get involved are doing this for
> >> career purposes. Some have already got their career boosted at ICANN
> and a
> >> few other cool places, might feel that it would be smart for those
> without a
> >> comfortable seat to join the carrousel of vanities.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> JC
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 12:43, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> >>
> >> Hi all, I share Anja's skepticism but also Anriette's more principled
> >> stance on participating in new processes. We need to communicate with
> >> relevant actors in this field. Ultimately I think the pragmatic
> question is
> >> if we find a sufficient number of qualified and trustworthy candidates
> who
> >> are willing to contribute on our behalf in the NMI. Whether or not we
> have
> >> experienced people who want to participate is a valuable indicator in
> >> itself, don't you agree? (I don't buy the well-known argument that
> those who
> >> are willing to get involved do this for career purposes.)
> >> Jeanette
> >>
> >> On 20 November 2014 11:49:06 CET, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Nnenna.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of
> >>
> >> opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >> Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others.
> >>
> >> It would be good if this respect for differing opinions was
> >>
> >> reciprocated.
> >>
> >>
> >> The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when
> >>
> >> someones personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that
> >>
> >> people stop expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would
> >>
> >> be good if we concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And
> >>
> >> some voices have already been silenced on this issue.
> >>
> >>
> >> We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to
> >>
> >> respect differences of opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >> Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building
> >>
> >> APC as  " an international network and non profit organisation that
> >>
> >> wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve
> >>
> >> our lives and create a more just world". No, she is not abandoning the
> >>
> >> pursuit of social justice.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ian Peter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Nnenna Nwakanma
> >>
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
> >>
> >> To: michael gurstein
> >>
> >> Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja Kovacs ; Governance ; Best Bits
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
> >>
> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
> >>
> >>
> >> Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me
> >>
> >> the more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is
> >>
> >> not perfect, but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as
> >>
> >> abandoning the pursuit of social justice?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If there was a human being who fought for social justice, it was Nelson
> >>
> >> Mandela.  And it is him who said:
> >>
> >> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your
> >>
> >> enemy. Then he becomes your partner."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I will rest my case for now
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nnenna
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> So Anriette, I'm taking from your argument that because the NMI offers
> >>
> >> some possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights,
> >>
> >> you are completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of
> >>
> >> social justice.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> M
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> >>
> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette
> >>
> >> Esterhuysen
> >>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 PM
> >>
> >> To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
> >>
> >> Cc: Governance; Best Bits
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in
> >>
> >> NETmundial Initiative - RFC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 esterhuysenexecutive
> >>
> >> directorassociation for progressive communicationspo 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
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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:
> >>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Renata Avila
> > Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want
> > Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
> > +44 7477168593 (UK)
> >
> > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> D.C.
> > 20005 USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>



-- 
<http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141121/30242531/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