[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Fri Nov 21 12:01:01 EST 2014
Wolfgang, I could be wrong but I read the below as referring to rather more
than simply being "project oriented".
Latest statement from NMI
The aim is to strengthen the capacity of the multistakeholder Internet
governance ecosystem to respond effectively in an open-source, on-demand
manner to concrete challenges identified by individual stakeholders, whether
on economic, social or security policy concerns or technical matters.
https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-answers-co
mmon-questions
As I said earlier I'm looking forward to the multistakeholderization of
global tax policy with Google and Amazon as full partners and of copyright
policy with Disney as equal footing stakeholders (as at Netmundial for
example).
M
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
Wolfgang"
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:29 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake; Ian Peter
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: AW: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation
in NETmundial Initiative
NMI is - in my eyes - not predetermined. It is an Invitation to be creative.
It will become what the people make out of it. It will be project oriented.
So when we talk about how VCS could become involved and what the conditions
for our cooperation would be we should also talk about what projects we
should propose. I would prioritize projects to support education and
training, to enhance access in underserved regions and to look for
innovative mechanisms to have human rights assessment procedures both for
national and international Internet related public policy making in existing
organizations.
Wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von David Cake
Gesendet: Fr 21.11.2014 10:03
An: Ian Peter
Cc: <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation
in NETmundial Initiative
On 21 Nov 2014, at 4:53 pm, Ian Peter < <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 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.
That is true - but I understand this was a decision of the
Board of Trustees, which is a fairly large group that includes members from
a multiple chapters, so I think it relatively unlikely that broader
consultation will change it too much.
I think if their position changes, it would be more likely to be due to
changes to the NMI proposal.
> 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.
Absolutely. I don't think ISOC will necessarily maintain
opposition to the idea of something like NMI. But will NMI itself change
enough to become that something?
Cheers
David (FWIW, I'm a member of ISOC-AU, but
just a member, I have no particular insight into their thinking)
>
> So things do change.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> From: David Cake
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 6:39 PM
> To: Arsene TUNGALI
> Cc: <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
; <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 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 <
<mailto:arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr> 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
<http://www.rudiinternational.org> www.rudiinternational.org
>>
>> Founder, Mabingwa Forum
>> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com> 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 <
<mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
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 <
<mailto:flavio at INF.UFRGS.BR> 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:
>>>
>>> <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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "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:
>>> <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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141121/c76a4d6e/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