[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Fri Nov 21 03:53:05 EST 2014
Hi David,
Bear in mind that (as I understand it) ISOC has yet to fully consult its chapters and members about this decision so I wouldn’t be too surprised to see some adjustments to their current position.
As Jeanette pointed out, ISOC was originally opposed to the formation of IGF, a position they reversed fairly quickly when IGF got under way. It’s also not many years ago that ISOC was arguing for NTIA to continue its oversight role of the root zone – a position that began to evolve after member chapters became involved in reversing that policy decision.
So things do change.
Ian Peter
From: David Cake
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:39 PM
To: Arsene TUNGALI
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; williams.deirdre at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
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:
1.. As far as I can see the Netmundial
Initiative will continue with or without us.
2.. 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.
3.. 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.)
4.. 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.
5.. 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.
6.. 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/20141121/8a83ddff/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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