[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Carlos Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Thu Nov 20 13:56:43 EST 2014
> Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
> discussion?
With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative.
fraternal regards
--c.a.
On 11/20/14 16:47, Renata Avila wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Happy to clarify my email, if it was not clear enough. I am also
> including the maps I did not include in my previous email.
>
> Again, there are no indications of opening and continuing revising the
> draft document. If there is a process to reopen the document and improve
> it, please indicate it. I know Net Mundial was considered by many a huge
> achievement and consensus. For the three reasons I explained before
>
> 1. Weak anti surveillance language
> 2. Inclusion of copyright provisions
> 3. Lack of South input, from all sectors
>
> I have always considered quite incomplete. If it is an open discussion
> and there will be an engaging process to "fix it" then it is a different
> conversation.
>
> Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text for
> discussion?
>
> With respect,
>
> Renata
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
> Is this all what you read/oppose in Renata's email? There ought to
> be no limit to sincerely try to understand what someone else is
> formulating rather brilliantly and so rightfully. So tell us more
> about what is silly here?
>
>
> Le 20 nov. 2014 à 19:04, Carlos Afonso a écrit :
>
> > Where is it stated that the declaration of São Paulo (principles
> and roadmap of NETmundial) are "final"??
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > On 11/20/14 10:47, Renata Avila 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
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
> >> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto: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 <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com <mailto: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>
> >>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>>
> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
> >>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> >>>> <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com <mailto: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
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
> >>>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
> >>>> <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
> <mailto: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 <http://igfwatch.org>
> <http://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 <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto: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
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B91%209899028053>
> <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
> >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
> <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________You
> >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To>
> >>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>
> >>>> <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org
> <mailto:africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto: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 <https://webwewant.org/>
> >> Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer
> >> +44 7477168593 <tel:%2B44%207477168593> (UK)
> >>
> >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500,
> Washington
> >> D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org
> <http://www.webfoundation.org>*
> >> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://webwewant.org/>
> 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*
> <http://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
>
-------------- 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