[bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br

Sun Nov 23 07:24:23 EST 2014

Thanks for the reminder Carlos.

One quick snap before going at your question. "Complot" is not part of my thinking, nor narrative. I do not see the world through any complot. Do you? So let's keep our head cool on this type of characterization.
We can all see interests in motion. 

To your question:

The IG asymmetry dates long before the mass surveillance revelations. But since then, we have seen the Montevideo statement, the ONE_NET initiative, the speech by Dilma Rousseff at the UN SG in NY, the NET MUNDIAL project launching , then the announcement of the IANA transition (under US conditions), the Marco civil and a statement by participants of NetMundial, and now we see an ICANN/WEF attempt to use the NetMundial statement as some kind of keystone to a re-thinking of Internet governance oriented through concrete projects (some money to be given away? any one having an idea of how to get part of that "funding"?)... And what else do you want me to say. 

I do no see any complot, nor am I sanguine about the WEF trying to be a neutral platform of engagement between their corporate membership and the IG clerics and masters. During the GIP, the WEF, through Richard Sammans' voice advocated for a form of dialogue, but he also clearly stated "one" vision of doing it with a major bias, as no requirement for any additional regulation to do that fresh re-thinking of IG. You know JNC is a bit stubborn about "public internet policies" and who should be interested primarily in this, and why JNC feels so bad about equating decision making for undifferentiated stakeholders. Nothing hysteric, even I do regret that the dialogue within CS takes us sometime in excessive language from all sides. 

So far, Virgilio attitude, as CGIbr main representative - and I agree with you that he is not representative of the Brazilian government in NMI - seems to be : "we will work with the existing institutions, and we don't need additional ones." At least this is what he states in his video. It is a bit different from saying "no additional regulations for IG". But is it not regrettable that he closes the door to new entities? One could be a complete new IGF? or a new entity for ICANN to become a true transnational body not under a US jurisdiction.

I am concerned with Fadi not staying much longer as chair of ICANN, as we can all see tensions within the US. I am saying that because I am not sure that so far all of the different efforts (1Net, NetMundial...) has provided a critical basis for rebalancing the asymmetry we leave in. So he might be seen as failing both camps in the US. Or maybe I missed something here. Let me know if you have some evidence of that rebalancing. Where I am so uncomfortable is to have the persisting view that CS because lacking unity, and lacking trust in itself is failing to defend public interest in Internet Public Policy related issues.

Kind regards
JC

PS/ I'll tell more about all that in my upcoming HuffPost. 

Le 23 nov. 2014 à 11:51, Carlos Afonso a écrit :

> BTW, I recall your article in that US-based blog, Huffington Post, denouncing NETmundial (not the initiative, but the meeting), just before the start of the event, as a complot by USA and the corporate folks to complete their "domination over the Internet":
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/for-more-internet-and-mor_b_5175698.html
> 
> I quote: "Still the Netmundial true co-organizers, ICANN and CGI.br still have had to make choices, even though the cost for traveling to Brazil already provided a natural selection in terms of attendance. To date, corporate delegates are to occupy more than 40 percent of the room. So here we are, after six months of intense behind-closed-doors preparation, ready to attend Netmundial, a conference that claims to be "multistakeholder," but which is really about launching the next stage of US global multistakeholder domination over the Internet, thanks to an ICANN++."
> 
> Do you still think this is a true rendering of the NETmundia event?
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 11/23/14 07:17, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>> Carlos,
>> 
>> Following what Parminder and Louis wrote, and I am in full agreement
>> with both, but I think every one here makes a difference between Lula
>> accepting very rightfully to come to express his views at Davos, and
>> Lula joining an initiative by a Californian non profit making profit and
>> a Swiss non profit making even more profit. Therefore, I would bet that
>> everyone makes a clear difference between partying with an unclear
>> setting by WEF/ICANN , and its Brazilian companion of misfortune, and an
>> invitation to talk to the global leaders, thanks to a nice room service
>> in Davos.
>> 
>> That being said, I thank Wolfgang for reminding us that NMI is taking
>> our eyes away from more serious concerns -  an evidence that this
>> initiative might be a great deal of waste for civil society asking
>> itself questions (not about the contents) but about the seats.
>> 
>> JC
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Le 23 nov. 2014 à 00:46, Carlos Afonso a écrit :
>> 
>>> Dear people,
>>> 
>>> In January 2003, Lula was just starting his first term as president.
>>> As usual he went to the World Social Forum where he was met with
>>> massive acclamation. I remember crying like a child to experience in
>>> loco the thousands of people cheering Lula.
>>> 
>>> From Porto Alegre he went to Davos.(*) Yes, that daunting lair of
>>> corporate devils! A group of militants, NGOs and social movements of
>>> course criticized Lula, along the same lines JNC does today as a sort
>>> of scion of its view of political correctness. But other militants,
>>> NGOs and social movements supported Lula's visit to WEF (I was among
>>> them) -- our president had to establish dialogue with all sectors, and
>>> there is no one who could say WEF indoctrinated Lula, or that WEF took
>>> the reigns of the government of Brazil. If anything happened, it would
>>> be the other way around.
>>> 
>>> I like to recall this story because it reminds me of the fury of
>>> arguments at the time -- just like we see today the different
>>> (adversarial?) camps of civil society nailing each other.
>>> 
>>> fraternal regards
>>> 
>>> --c.a.
>>> 
>>> (*) See, for example, this report:
>>> http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/two-world-forums-debate-globalisation
>>> 
>>> On 11/22/14 21:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am greatly disappointed that so many friends in the CGI.Br has now
>>>>> come
>>>>> out to vouchsafe or front for what is basically a WEF and ICANN
>>>>> (basically
>>>>> doing US's bidding) game.
>>>> 
>>>> Disappointed?  My heart bleeds for you, to be sure.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> everyone knows WEF to be. Do the Brazilians, who kind of gave the world
>>>>> the World Social Forum, really need to be reminded of the basic lessons
>>>>> with regard to the designs of global domination by a certain
>>>>> economic and
>>>>> political elite, and their impatience with democracy, especially at the
>>>>> global level!
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Now you call them naïve.   How incredibly patronizing.
>>>> 
>>>> Any so called "democracy" of the sort you seem to want, that excludes
>>>> stakeholders based on any nationality and/or economic backgrounds
>>>> that you dislike, is emphatically not a democracy, but merely pure
>>>> demagoguery.  Makes me glad that you continue to remain far, far away
>>>> from the civil society mainstream thinking on this subject.
>>>> 
>>>>> Again, you are fast expending the political capital that the Brazilian
>>>>> government and CGI.Br has,  something that I find to be such a great
>>>>> loss,
>>>>> and very much hope were not the case. *The global progressive community
>>>>> has consistently  supported you, but this support cannot be taken for
>>>> 
>>>> I admire how you keep attempting to speak for the global progressive
>>>> community, in pushing the regressive agenda that you continue to
>>>> push, and that the majority of the community apparently doesn't share.
>>>> 
>>>>> granted, which is my unfortunate duty to tell you, as you come out
>>>>> publicly to seek global support for a WEF centred global governance
>>>>> initiative.*
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Your support, and those of the small splinter group of extremists
>>>> that caucus with you? Well, may the good Lord preserve us all from
>>>> such support.
>>>> 
>>>>> Your statement says that you are willing to dialogue and work together
>>>>> with everyone. Some of us from global progressive civil society offer
>>>>> ourselves for such a dialogue. We have in our hands today the interests
>>>>> and fate of the people of the world,  and of the future generations. Let
>>>> 
>>>> That sounds more like a royal "We" than any sort of inclusiveness.
>>>> Do stop trying to speak for civil society at large.  You don't and
>>>> have never represented it all.
>>>> 
>>>> --srs
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20141123/c797584e/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