[bestbits] [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
JFC Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Fri Nov 21 06:34:36 EST 2014
JCN,
you will note that things develop according to
plan: to free digitality from amateurs in using
their own strength. This is Aikido for Putin,
Sun-Tsu for Chineses, multistkeholders for the
USG, disarrayed architecture engineering for
IETF, T&L for the CS, etc. you name it.
Now, question is "whose plan"?
The response is in the missing fundamental
consideration: architectonics. How things realy
work, the ***science*** of politics which is the
***art*** of commanding to these human free
societal animals, whose sociability is bluntly
facilitated by artificial pervasive services and
influencable peripheral intelligence.
The plan is just what science call a SOC,
self-organized criticality, mathematics compute
according to the laws of catastrophes, and
networking has made us reach the conceptual core
of complexity. This is what we used to call
"chaos" - which also is fractal (rules are not
dependent on the scale) and
deterministic.(because there are rules, and the
science of these rules is architectonics).
What you describe is the way this SOC episode of
ours is going to resolve. SOC resolutions are by
emergences. These emergences are longer or
shorter depending on the way the "stake holders"
overstand (rastafari meeaning - entendre in
French, entender in Spanish) what is going on and
adequately contribute. This is just a simple part of the humanity's History.
Don't worry too much we know the likely end of
the story from the public international network
prototype I had to moderate in the 80s and from
our day to day life. There is the medium and
there is the language. We still confuse them in a
single protocol stack. What we are currently
doing is splitting the transport stratum (TCP/IP,
NDN; etc.) from the semiotic stratum (business,
politics, volunteers, private life, etc. semantics).
There were two ways at least to do it: within the
protocol stack (this was the limited presentation
OSI layer six) or in splitting the stack in two
different parts. There is a long time I made my
mind, the IAB just decided to consider this
architectural issue (35 years later, but with two billions users more).
Nothing complicate, just deeper in complexity.
Interesting.
jfc
At 09:07 21/11/2014, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Jouriticnal wrote:
>As we all know the Net Mundial is not a
>international treaty, it is not seated on any
>democratic legitimacy, it is not binding (to any
>stakeholders). It is wishful thinking, whatever
>we think it is. It has no road map. It has not
>defined any robust process of further
>consultation simply because it lacked any
>legitimacy. It has given no definition of what
>means "democratic multistakeholderism" probably
>because the "grouping" did not really asked itself what it really meant.
>
>Will the current initiative have to deal with
>all of these pending questions? Even re-write
>part of what was agreed with some difficulty and reserve?
>
>Well if it is so, it is more than predictable
>that this "initiative" will soon or later be
>lost in an ocean of other non consequential
>statements. With the asymmetry still at full speed.
>
>Is the NMI supposed to reassure the US
>government to transition the IANA function to
>ICANN (with cutting the direct link between
>itself and IANA, replacing this link by another
>one between itself and ICANN). Is this the NMI
>mission? Right now, the IANA contract might
>simply be renewed to give some extra time for clarifying the transition.
>
>But then why do we all bother? The NMI final
>report is suppposedly being processed... So
>Brazil would have simply be part of another
>swindle, and the Brazilian UN speech sent to the
>archives of this international institution
>created in san Francisco, in 1944. "Circulez bonnes gens".
>
>I don't think anyone should worry about the fact
>that such or such grouping self-appoints to
>itself a mandate of delivering a message to the
>world. The NMI initiative is right now of the
>track of becoming another masquarade. What is
>more depressing and concerning is the fact that
>IG civil society is totally failing its function and democratic challenge.
>
>Again, would it be more clever for civil society (as composed today) to
>- get together
>- see how to best transform the IGF in a useful
>forum, looking for becoming a really influential
>body ( go and get some funding at ICANN, WEF,
>BRAZIL as they look really concerned with the future of Internet)
>- keep talking with any table, if this table
>wishes to listen, and engage a conversation
>(that can be done without endorsing the table).
>One can simply wait for the outcome of any given
>table. Civil society would always be able to
>make its comment. No one here believes that
>governments will obey to a statement by a WEF/ICANN/CGIbr.
>- Assess its capacity to make progress
>- Be transparent about its source of funds (keep
>at bay the nice friends trying to twist the dialogue)
>
>If the current civil society participants are
>unable to go in that direction, new participants
>will take the lead, and send the not-ables to a
>well deserved rest. The new ones will be a bit
>more radical, and probably more efficient.
>
>With ISOC, JNC and others including some US
>academics refusing to give a free ride ticket,
>this initiative will just meet its destiny. And
>so what? What will be the dramatic changes? Be
>influential on something that has no
>consequence, what's the big deal? Some have
>expressed their idea of getting more acquainted
>with the "enemy". I don't see WEF as an enemy,
>and I don't see why I need to enter their bunker
>by the lake with lock doors, video surveillance,
>security guards, lacking some sense of
>hospitality and welcome to visitors, to better
>know what is WEF. It is more than well known to
>any honest broker who wishes to get it clear. It
>is for example already clear that the WEF vision
>of BIG DATA comes in contradiction to what CS is
>advocating in terms of protecting rights, and
>not just human rights. But why in this thread so
>far, no one was really concerned with this?
>
>On the contrary we might assist to another
>terrible mass to praise free-markets to handle
>any issues, including the public ones, thanks to
>elitist equal footing. "The only thing you don't
>want is more regulations" that was said during the GIP conference.
>
>During the GIF, isolated poor business
>representatives complained that corporations
>were not included of the Internet governance
>debate - a joke! That probably explains why it
>was hard for them to give the floor to other participants.
>
>Let's the divide get bigger, if this is all
>what our imagination is allowing us to think
>about. Seating 5 cs participants to NMI will
>bring nothing to IG. Getting CS together would
>bring much more. Let us see what a "democratic
>multistakeholderism" will happen to be once the
>WEF/ICANN/CGIbr will have had a second thought about it.
>
>Civil society is now aiming at a level zero of
>Politics. And we look like babies.
>
>"En avoir ou pas" wrote Hemingway.
>
>JC
>
>
>
>Le 21 nov. 2014 à 07:33, Arsene TUNGALI a écrit :
>
>>Hi there,
>>
>>Here are my thoughts on this trend.
>>
>>Civil Society is a stakeholder and it has its
>>power as others to influence processes. In my
>>life, i learnt to not refuse to be part of a
>>process just because i don't share 'some'
>>principles from one of the organisers although
>>it is something that is important and can have
>>a global impact in my own life and the life of
>>those i most care about. Instead, i take the
>>opportunity to go and try to help them change
>>their behaviors. If nothing changes, then i know what to do.
>>
>>Flavio (CGI) said in the mail Mawaki shared:
>>''...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.''
>>
>>Let's be part of the NMI but let's also define
>>clear points: 'what we will never endorse' and
>>'what we need to work on as a CS agenda and
>>give it to our 5 representatives'. We do have principles, right?
>>
>>We are at a big step of the history and not
>>being part of this can be something future
>>generations will never understand and will
>>never forgive. We all know that they will go
>>with or without us. Instead, if we go and
>>things turn against our principles, then our
>>'publicized' leave will have more sense than a
>>simple boycott before giving it a try. This is
>>a big responsibility and an important decision for the future of CS as a whole.
>>
>>These are personal views!
>>
>>Regards,
>>A
>>------------------
>>Arsene Tungali,
>>Executive Director, Rudi International
>><http://www.rudiinternational.org/>www.rudiinternational.org
>>
>>Founder, Mabingwa Forum
>><http://www.mabingwa-forum.com/>www.mabingwa-forum.com
>>Phone:<tel:+243993810967>+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 07:39:52, Suresh
>>Ramasubramanian<'<mailto:suresh at hserus.net>suresh at hserus.net'> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I can't agree more. The other
>>thing is you will definitely find other civil society organizations at the
>>table, whatever the local consensus we achieve here is.
>>
>>
>>
>>On
>>November 21, 2014 10:55:08 AM
>><mailto:shailam at yahoo.com>shailam at yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>Hi
>>>If
>>>we wish to have our voice heard we need to be at the table. If we are not
>>>there how can we voice opinions ,influence and shape policy decisions.
>>>Regardless of the numerous pros and cons to joining NM, the prevailing
>>>factor is to be a participating presence.
>>>Shaila Rao Mistry
>>>
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>>On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:35
>>>AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Even within civil society,
>>>>include only those sections of civil society that still use jargon like
>>>>neoliberal
>>>>I suppose it is a mercy that
>>>>'evil capitalist running dogs' is out of fashion these days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On
>>>>November 19, 2014 2:52:03 PM Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dear
>>>>>Guru,
>>>>>
>>>>>â(You
>>>>>(Guru) said: â
>>>>>WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have
>>>>>seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of
>>>>>Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart from
>>>>>using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in
>>>>>authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways,
>>>>>their unregulated work also is structuring our participation in the
>>>>>information society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also
>>>>>understand how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on
>>>>>extraordinary programme of global
>>>>>surveillance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>âIf such as strong generalization of big
>>>>>business is to be accepted as fair and
>>>>>valid, then all those who subscribe
>>>>>to such a generalization may have to go back to the WSIS declarations and
>>>>>summarily exclude Business as a Stakeholder group, and then declare that
>>>>>Internet Governance ought to be a process with two stakeholder groups -
>>>>>Government + Civil Society. No, no, on second thoughts I see your
>>>>>reference to Snowden and USG+, so the Civil Society could exclude
>>>>>Government from Internet Governance, and declare that Internet Governance
>>>>>must be reinvented as a single stakeholder group process, with Civil
>>>>>Society as the only stakeholder group.
>>>>>Seriously, i
>>>>>f WSIS had committed to build a
>>>>>"
>>>>>people-centred, inclusive and
>>>>>development-oriented Information Society
>>>>>â", what happens to
>>>>>inclusiveness and development with such a position on Big Business?
>>>>>â
>>>>>
>>>>>And, why this hatred for big business? Most
>>>>>progress in this world has happened because of enterprise, much more
>>>>>because of business than because of Government. Granted, some of the
>>>>>information technology big businesses have worked with Governments on
>>>>>surveillance designs, and even there, we do not know how of much of such
>>>>>cooperation came out of a desire for profit and how much of it was forced
>>>>>by arm-twisting or by milder pressures in so many subtle and imaginative
>>>>>ways.
>>>>>Irrespective
>>>>>of how WEF's role has been articulated at the moment, it is a very
>>>>>positive development to bring in the WEF
>>>>>.
>>>>>â
>>>>>WEF
>>>>>participation suddenly expands business participation to a world of
>>>>>business outside the IT sector, so WEF's attention to IG issues might
>>>>>by itself act as a balancing influence
>>>>>within the corporate world, because
>>>>>many of these Big Businesses are Internet "users"
>>>>>themselves.
>>>>>âSome
>>>>>of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways. What is
>>>>>needed here is strong support at the moment, and w
>>>>>e could
>>>>>âeventually
>>>>>â
>>>>>work towards a
>>>>>greater balance across stakeholder groups.â
>>>>>â
>>>>>
>>>>><https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>Sivasubramanian M
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Guru <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear Mawaki
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I would like to cite from two sources:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A. WSIS Declaration of Principles -
>>>>><http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html>http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html
>>>>>
>>>>>(the very
>>>>>first two clauses)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world*, *assembled
>>>>>in Geneva from 10-12 December 2003 for the first phase of the World
>>>>>Summit on the Information Society,* declare our common desire and
>>>>>commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and
>>>>>development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create,
>>>>>access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling
>>>>>individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential
>>>>>in promoting their sustainable development and improving their
>>>>>quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the
>>>>>Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the
>>>>>Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>>>>2. Our challenge* is to harness the potential of information and
>>>>>communication technology to promote the development goals of the
>>>>>Millennium Declaration, namely the eradication of extreme poverty
>>>>>and hunger; achievement of universal primary education; promotion of
>>>>>gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child
>>>>>mortality; improvement of maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDS,
>>>>>malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability;
>>>>>and development of global partnerships for development for the
>>>>>attainment of a more peaceful, just and prosperous world. We also
>>>>>reiterate our commitment to the achievement of sustainable
>>>>>development and agreed development goals, as contained in the
>>>>>Johannesburg Declaration and Plan of Implementation and the
>>>>>Monterrey Consensus, and other outcomes of relevant United Nations
>>>>>Summits.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I now will cite from the WEF site -
>>>>><http://www.weforum.org/our-members>http://www.weforum.org/our-members
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Begin
>>>>>Our Members
>>>>>The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members
>>>>>comprise 1,000 of the worldâs top corporations, global enterprises
>>>>>usually with more than US$ 5 billion in turnover. These enterprises
>>>>>rank among the top companies within their industry and play a
>>>>>leading role in shaping the future of their industry and region.
>>>>>Some of our Member companies join the Forumâs Strategic and Industry
>>>>>Partnership communities, which are designed to deepen their
>>>>>engagement with the Forumâs events, project and initiatives. The
>>>>>Forumâs Members are at the heart of all our activities.
>>>>>End
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is clear that WEF is a primarily group of big businesses. We have
>>>>>seen the increasing danger to the ideals of the WSIS Declaration of
>>>>>Principles from the activities of transnational corporations. Apart
>>>>>from using/monetising our data for their commercial gains in
>>>>>authorised/unauthorised/illegitimate/illegal ways, their unregulated
>>>>>work also is structuring our participation in the information
>>>>>society in many unhealthy ways. Through Snowden we also understand
>>>>>how many of them are in cahoots with the 5 eyes (USG+) on
>>>>>extraordinary programme of global surveillance, which helps them in
>>>>>their goals of political-economic domination / colonisation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Participating in forums anchored in such a space will only
>>>>>legitimise their power. I am clear that IGC should not participate
>>>>>in the NMI.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>thanks and regards
>>>>>Guru
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gurumurthy Kasinathan
>>>>>Director, IT for Change
>>>>>In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.ITforChange.Net/>www.ITforChange.Net|
>>>>>Cell:<tel:91%209845437730>91 9845437730 | Tel:<tel:91%2080%2026654134>91 80
>>>>>26654134,
>>>>><tel:26536890>26536890
>>>>>
>>>>><http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum>http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tuesday 18 November 2014 05:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>> > Dear All,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > You must have heard a good deal about this by now, so I won't
>>>>>repeat
>>>>> > the background details. In the middle of the night last
>>>>>night, before
>>>>> > hitting the bed after a long and drawn out day playing
>>>>>catch-up with
>>>>> > deadlines, I saw that Ian (chair of CSCG) forwarded the NMI
>>>>> > Transitional Committee's reply the CSCG enquiry. Basically,
>>>>>they are
>>>>> > willing to let the CSCG vet CS candidates to be part of the
>>>>>NMI
>>>>> > Coordination Council.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Now the question before us is to get a feel of the membership
>>>>>of CSCG
>>>>> > member entities as to whether to get involved in the NMI
>>>>>process or
>>>>> > not. I believe this is the last step in the consultations
>>>>>we've been
>>>>> > having (with NMI initiators, among ourselves at the CSCG and
>>>>>with the
>>>>> > membership of our respective organizations.) After this we
>>>>>should be
>>>>> > able to give a definite answer, formulate a definite position
>>>>>about
>>>>> > our participation in the NMI process.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So what do you think? Please get right to the point and be
>>>>>brief.
>>>>> > State your preference for IGC Involvement or No involvement
>>>>>and, if
>>>>> > you care to provide us with such, I would be grateful to you
>>>>>if you
>>>>> > could keep your supporting argument in one short paragraph
>>>>>(as we
>>>>> > just want to take the "temperature of the room" if you see
>>>>>what I
>>>>> > mean.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thank you for your understanding. Best regards.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Mawaki
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>>>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>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>
>>>>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Translate this email:
>>>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>>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>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>For
>>>>all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>
>>>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>To
>>>>edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>
>>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>Translate
>>>>this email:
>>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>
>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>
>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email:
>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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