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

Fri Nov 21 15:48:19 EST 2014

I think that it is very clear by now that there is quite extensive and
widespread opposition to the NMI proposal and no likelihood of a broadly
supportive agreement to it from CS (and others) even in the absence of the
JNC.  

That being the case those who have indicated that their support for the
proposal was based on the fact that it was going to happen in any case and
so we (cs) should climb aboard so as not to miss the train, might want to
begin reconsidering their position.

While the NMI certainly would have the financial resources and buy-in from
various elements and directions to proceed even in the above circumstance,
it would most certainly lack the legitimacy of consensus support from IG CS
and thus would proceed if it did with a very considerable cloud over its
head and visibly as a very one-sided and thus illegitimate approach to IG.

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 12:11 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Cake; Deirdre Williams
Subject: RE: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation
in NETmundial Initiative

Though David Cake and I share the viewpoint that we should keep a distance
from NMI I dont 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 dont 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
dont want, and dont 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 dont 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 lets
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>
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/20141121/189798f4/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