[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
Nnenna Nwakanma
nnenna75 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 23 22:41:34 EST 2014
It is Monday 3:40 AM GMT.
I am STILL in favour of IGC engaging with NMI.
Nnenna
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20141124/bedf3173/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