[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative

[Milton L Mueller]

Though David Cake and I share the viewpoint that we should keep a distance from NMI I don't think his comments capture the main motivation for my point of view, so I need to elaborate a bit.

I find myself opposing formal CS buy in to NMI Coordinating Committee not because I am opposed on principle to working with the commercial interests in a MS environment, but because I see no reason for civil society to bind itself to a quasi-institutionalized, legitimizing presence in an organization set up primarily by and for other stakeholders, especially when we have no idea what that organization will do.

Even if NMI had made acceptable concessions to get CS to be represented on its coordinating committee, I don't think we should be on that coordinating committee, formally, qua CS. As I wrote in my blog, it is in effect an attempt to establish a kind of hegemony over global internet policy and I don't want, and don't think anyone in CS should want, that kind of hegemony, not at this time, not in this way. If you support the Netmundial principles and road map you can pursue those in any number of ways, I don't see why locking yourself into NMI advances that cause.

In other words, NMI is just a pressure group, a coalition. Let any CS individual or CS organizations who feels comfortable coalescing with those bedfellows join it, just as they might join Web We Want or GNI, but let's not feed the delusion that this is the only place to do internet governance. If at some point in the future NMI proposes something concrete that we can support - and by that I refer to _substantive policy_, not _process_, then we can always join in with them to help promote and advance that policy or activity. I want to know what their priorities are and what policies they are proposing in a very specific way before I throw in my lot with them. The mere fact that they are MS does not by itself win my support. I see no reason to tell them in advance that we will always support or be a part of whatever NMI does.

--MM

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:11 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams
Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative

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<mailto: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<mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
Fellas,
Some of us have raised questions about the views of the Brazilian party (CGI.br<http://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<mailto: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<http://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<http://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<http://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<http://CGI.br>)



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/20141121/007493fd/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