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

[Seth Johnson]

I will note that it's quite good for there to be a contingent of civil
society that's refusing to accommodate -- leaves a clear claim among
civil society advocates to the priority of MSism as it was before
"Fadi's phase II."

Keep in mind Fadi's likely enough doing this NMI and GIP phase
*because* he didn't get everything he wanted from NM.br .


Seth (still agnostic, but I think a divide on this point in civil
society is a good thing, so long as you're clear what you gain by
drawing the line)

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva
<Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> 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

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