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

[parminder at itforchange.net]

> 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?

I too am amazed that it amazes civil society people that someone makes a
direct connection between partnering with a WEF based initiative on
governing a key social sector and compromising on social justice
considerations..

In this regard, one would want to point to literature on what is the world
social forum for instance, how it came into being in direct opposition to
a Davos or WEF world view, and how the concept of social justice is
central to this opposition and so on, but one would have thought people
and groups in global civil society will know these facts..

But indeed there are "new reality" global civil societies I suppose.. They
are ready to "give a shot" to anything as long as - or is it just a
coincidence - the status quo of global Internet power is on the same side
of to what a shot is being given. (It is perhaps just a coincidence that
US is the only country which has till now issued a statement on the NMI -
and of course positive, and big US Internet companies are on WEF's board.)

No, we did not think of giving a shot to , well, maybe the ITU could be a
fine place to deal with Internet issues .. In that case the fancy new
ideas of 'making your enemy your partner' did not occur to anyone....
Again, just a coincidence that US and Google had preemptorily declared
before the WCIT  that Internet is not a telecom service and therefore it
is not ITU's remit (although back in the US, both the gov and google today
seek classification of Internet as a telecom service under title 2 of
FCC's legal instruments)


Amazing indeed!

parminder




>
> 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 esterhuysen
>>
>> executive director
>>
>> association for progressive communications
>>
>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
>>
>> anriette at apc.org
>>
>> www.apc.org
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      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