[bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in NETmundial Initiative - RFC
Norbert Bollow
nb at bollow.ch
Thu Nov 20 14:08:19 EST 2014
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:56:43 -0200
Carlos Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> > Carlos, can you share information about plans to reopen the text
> > for discussion?
>
> With pleasure: it is called NETmundial Initiative.
Is it somehow / somewhere officially stated that the NMI plan includes
reopening the São Paulo text for discussion?
If so, I'd appreciate a pointer, as I would have in that case missed
something of importance (even though I have been trying to observe this
closely.)
Greetings,
Norbert
> 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