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

Sun Nov 23 11:04:31 EST 2014

Dear David Cake,

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> Siva, there is a big difference between including WEF in the process, and
> having them run the process by their own rules.
>
> I *welcome* the involvement of WEF in open, participatory,
> multi-stakeholder spaces - they are in a good position to eloquently
> express some of the positions of the commercial sector. Often, commercial
> representatives within IG processes often represent small sectors of the
> commercial world with very strong biases towards particular issues (such as
> telcos and copyright cartels), WEF might be able to provide a broader
> commercial perspective, and maybe commercial representation in IG spaces
> might not be quite so dominated by a small cabal. And note, welcoming the
> involvement of such organisations is not the same as having sympathy for
> their policy positions and actions, simply I'd rather debate those
> positions in an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder fora, rather than have
> to battle covert lobbying and decision making in closed or opaque fora in
> which CS has no voice.
>
But I *oppose* considering WEF processes as equivalent to open
> multi-stakeholder ones in legitimacy. WEFs own processes are not open, they
> are strictly gatekeepered. And they are commercial led processes, with
> commercial goals. WEF is, of course, welcome to keep doing those things,
> but such processes should not be considered legitimate means of producing
> multi-stakeholder transnational consensus. And this NMI process certainly
> started with assumptions that reflect the problems with WEF processes, such
> as choosing the CS sector representatives that the WEF wanted.
>

1. NETmundial is not in any way 'folded into' the WEF, so it does not
become part of WEF.  WEF is to be seen as an organization that has joined
other organizations in this initiative. WEF processes may not be open, (it
is upto the WEF to decide on its own style of managing their business
forum), but as a participant of the NETmundial Initiative, WEF may not
overwhelm this process with its own style.

2. NETMundial Initiative is a multi-stakeholder process where each
stakeholder group would balance the other groups. If the initial NMI
processes weren't perfect, I would rather consider it not so well thought
of - in its early stages.

As Harmut Glaser says, "It is up for the community to transform NMI into
something that is concrete and useful for the advancement of IG in full
respects of the principles enshrined in the NETmundial declaration.
"

Sivasubramanian M

>
> So, yes, bringing in the WEF can be considered a positive in some ways -
> but not in the way the NMI process has gone so far.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 5:21 pm, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Guru,
>
> (You (Guru) said:  
>> 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
>
>
> If 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
> ", what happens to inclusiveness and development with such a position on
> Big Business? 
>
>
> 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
> .
> 
> 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.
> Some of these Big Businesses are possibly charitable in unknown ways.
> What is needed here is strong support at the moment, and w
> e could
> eventually 
> work towards a greater balance across stakeholder groups.
> 
>
> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
>
> 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  (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
>>
>> Begin
>> Our Members
>> The World Economic Forum is a membership organization. Our Members
>> comprise 1,000 of the world’s 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
>> Forum’s Strategic and Industry Partnership communities, which are designed
>> to deepen their engagement with the Forum’s events, project and
>> initiatives.  The Forum’s 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
>> www.ITforChange.Net <http://www.itforchange.net/>| Cell:91 9845437730 |
>> Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890
>> 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
>>
>> 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:
>     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/ef191f2f/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