[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
David Cake
dave at difference.com.au
Fri Nov 21 02:39:58 EST 2014
I think if ISOC continues to not be involved, and there is no significant buy in from other I* orgs other than ICANN, then the NMI will not end up being a very significant process anyway.
But I certainly think that if the CSCG, or individual groups within it, continue to negotiate, and particularly if there is a significant change that responds to ISOC concerns, then that is no problem. If CS members wish to participate in the process in the hope that happens, I have no problem with that.
That said, I'd be surprised if ISOC change their position without huge changes to the process (possibly equivalent to more or less starting again).
I personally doubt JNC will rejoin the process unless WEF is effectively removed from any leadership role, but I'm sure they are more than capable of explaining their position themselves.
David
On 21 Nov 2014, at 3:23 pm, Arsene TUNGALI <arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> David, you are right in many of the points raised but...
>
> Not participating, in my opinion, will result in no change of structure or so within NMI. However, being part of it will certainly shape it. We need people who will challenge them to sit on the same table for face-to-face debates.
>
> From my understanding, ISOC, JNC and other groups who are againts will be happy to join if there is some major changes happening. But trust me, no change will happen if we remain on arguing on mailing lists rather than on that table.
>
> I encourage those who are willing to join to go and help change the course of things within NMI so the other CS bodies can join as well:)
>
> ------------------
> Arsene Tungali,
> Executive Director, Rudi International
> www.rudiinternational.org
>
> Founder, Mabingwa Forum
> www.mabingwa-forum.com
> Phone:+243993810967
>
> ICANN Fellow | ISOC Member | Child Online Protection Advocate | Youth Leader | Internet Governance.
> Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
> At 21 nov. 2014 09:10:39, David Cake<'dave at difference.com.au'> wrote:I think Deirdre speaks a fair bit of sense here.
>
> I don't think the two sides of this debate are as far apart some would suggest.
>
> The majority of CS certainly seemed to feel that the initial proposal for structure presented by the NMI founding organisations was very badly flawed.
>
> Now, it may be that there are some within JNC and other parts of civil society who are willing to write off the entire enterprise simply because WEF is one of the founding organisations, regardless of the specific role it has in the current structure. That position generally goes along with an opposition to all fora in which commercial organisations are full participants (a familiar JNC refrain), and I think we can say that is solidly a minority position within CS groups that participate in IG processes, and likely to stay that way.
>
> There are also those, primarily within the technical community, who feel that having transnational fora that can make meaningful decisions on anything related to the Internet, outside the narrow technical remit of the I* agencies, is a problem. There is perhaps a lingering sense of this within the ISOC decision (though there is more to it than that). But I get the feeling that the majority of us would cautiously welcome some more meaningful fora for addressing some broader IG issues, in the spirit of NetMundial. There are some who would rather than took place by an expanded role for the IGF, but I don't think there are many of us who think that is likely to happen in the near future.
>
> So, I think we are more or less left with a majority that feels that something with similar goals to the NMI would be valuable, but the current NMI as proposed has some very real problems in structure and process, especially with the significant role of the WEF. The big question is how to respond to the existence of this badly flawed initiative.
>
> So we essentially have divisions between those who feel the process and structure so far is so badly flawed that the best response is to ignore it and hope that a better initiative can be constructed after its failure, those who feel that with sufficient negotiation and pressure it can be wrenched into more acceptable shape, and those who feel that despite its significant flaws it might turn out to be a significant venue. I think these divisions are largely tactical (there are no insurmountable differences regarding the potential value of a forum with general aims similar to NMI, or on the significant flaws of this proposal to fill that space). Most of the arguments turn on whether or not it will turn out to be a significant forum. If it will be significant with or without CS, the argument is we should be involved. If ISOC withdrawal has already killed it, we should not bother participating. If CS involvement is the deciding factor on whether or not it will be acceptable, then how should we use that potential leverage, or should we simply drop it on principle.
>
> My opinion is that ISOC withdrawing has already holed it below the waterline, and it will not be a significant initiative unless it can drag the tech community back in to refloat it, and doing so would probably require the significant changes to the structure and process that CS wants. So, I'm probably in favour of no participation at this point, and maybe agreeing to participate at a later date if the structure is changed. But I regard that as a tactical decision at this point, and I certainly don't think anyone who does want to participate is letting down CS as a whole by choosing to do so.
>
> David
>
>
> On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:43 am, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I asked in an earlier post whether
>> civil society has been manoeuvred into a position in which choosing
>> not to be involved becomes not really an option?
>> As civil society we have a very broad range of perspective and
>> therefore it is much more difficult for this group to act together
>> rapidly, as ISOC has done, when the nature of the issue itself is
>> still doubtful. Other people have already reminded us of the
>> hesitation before the NETmundial meeting in April, and the enthusiasm
>> (in general) which greeted the outcomes of that meeting, although
>> there are still some reservations – Renata just shared hers.
>> My sympathies lean towards a reluctance
>> to provide legitimacy, but my common sense suggests the following:
>>
>>
>> As far as I can see the Netmundial
>> Initiative will continue with or without us.
>>
>> Civil Society is split now (and
>> has been split for some time) so that any attempt at a boycott is
>> likely to fail because it will be incomplete.
>>
>> The invitation to join can be
>> presented in such a way as to provide legitimacy even if not all of
>> civil society agrees to accept. (This is what I meant by
>> “manoeuvred” above.)
>>
>> We have not been given a clear
>> picture of what the initiative is – it may prove to be something
>> that meets our approval – or not.
>>
>> It is very important that any
>> civil society representatives who join that committee should be
>> people who go with an open mind. Those who disapprove are absenting
>> themselves anyway; it would be better to have representatives who
>> are initially neutral but open to be persuaded one way or the other.
>>
>> Finally, should the initiative
>> prove to be unacceptable, a well publicised walkout by the 5 civil
>> society representatives (who are also representing “the world”)
>> would be much easier to arrange and much more effective than a
>> partial boycott before the meeting takes place.
>>
>> The discussion at the Geneva Internet
>> Conference about the Netmundial Initiative yesterday morning
>> (Wednesday 19th) was useful. On Tuesday during “Same
>> issues, different perspectives: overcoming policy silos in privacy
>> and data protection”, one
>> of the afternoon sessions, Brian
>> Trammell, Senior Researcher, Communication Systems Group, ETH Zurich,
>> presenting the “technical” perspective, said of the Internet
>> Engineering Task Force (IETF)
>> that members are volunteers who “participate as individuals”.
>> This is also true of the Internet Governance Caucus, and essentially
>> of civil society as a whole. One of the freedoms that our society tries to
>> provide is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of
>> her/his own conscience. My own choice is a pragmatic one. It should
>> in no way be seen as a criticism of anyone else's point of view or
>> decision.
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On 20 November 2014 11:41, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fellas,
>> Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br) in this NMI business. But I know they are in a delicate position and may be concerned to appear as judge and jury if they come out strong for a position (and we can expect which that position would be.) Flavio is not on the IGC list but he granted me the permission to forward to this list this message of his below, originally posted to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN's GNSO.
>> Best,
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>> Fw: [NCSG-Discuss] UPDATE ON CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN NET MUNDIAL INITIATIVE
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner <flavio at INF.UFRGS.BR> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> I have been informed that the "transitional council" of the NMI - NETmundial Initiative (which contains representatives from ICANN,CGI.br and WEF and is provisory, until the 25 names of the permanent council have been defined) is having an intense dialogue with CSCG (the Civil Society Coordination Group) and, together, they shall come to a solution for appointing names to the council by consensus and fully respecting nominations from Civil Society. There is no intention whatsoever from the transitional council to indicate names in a closed, top-down manner and without full endorsement from CSCG.
>>
>> The transitional council also expects to achieve similar solutions for appointing names that will represent other stakeholder groups.
>>
>> Please notice that CGI.br (the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee), which is one of the entities proposing the NMI, would never agree with top-down, closed decisions that would strongly undermine CGI's legitimacy as a true bottom-up, multistakeholder body. CGI.br is completely committed to preserve the NETmundial principles in the implementation of the NMI.
>>
>> Please remember also that, when NETmundial was proposed by the end of 2013, all of us in the global Internet Governance (IG) community, because of lack of information, were puzzled about its organization and possible success and outcomes. But the global community faced the challenge and transformed a vague idea into a successful event, with a true multistakeholder organization, with very open and transparent processes, and with a final document that was achieved by rough consensus and approved governance principles that were praised by most of the stakeholders (including human rights and other principles that are extremely valued by Civil Society).
>>
>> So let's try to transform NMI, which is still also a vague idea, into something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG and that fully respects the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration.
>>
>> Flávio
>> (NCUC member and member of the Board of CGI.br)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141121/4b0f6bac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141121/4b0f6bac/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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