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

Jeanette Hofmann jeanette at wzb.eu
Mon Nov 24 04:21:41 EST 2014


I completely agree with Lee's conclusions. Let's put aside our underdog 
attitude for a moment and think about projects that we could advance 
with the help of this new platform.
Here at #Afrisig2014, we have discussed some ideas about evolving the 
summer school model, developing a more general curriculum, put together 
textbooks and stuff like that.

(For clarification, I am not applying for a seat on any NMI council, and 
my personal career does not benefit from supporting new IG platforms 
either.)

jeanette

Am 24.11.14 05:36, schrieb Lee W McKnight:
> I am MORE in favor IGC engaging with NMI because:
>
>  1.
>     the rationale and explanations from Carlos Afonso and cgi.br
>     colleagues are clear and sensible; those who helped pull off
>     NetMundial have earned IGC’s support
>  2.
>     The views of the I-orgs, who were against IGF before they were for
>     it  (cough cough), are also clear but less convincing, seeing as
>     those orgs do not claim to be the appropriate venues themselves to
>     address the range of issues likely to be (in my opinion) brought to
>     NMI, and offer no alternative. Should NMI prove to be of some merit,
>     no doubt the I orgs will engage at a later date.
>  3.
>     Likewise, the more JNC has explained its views, the less weight they
>     hold, seeing as they appear focused on a specifically anti-US big
>     (internet) business animus , completely neglecting to note the new
>     giants on the block such as Alibaba's record-setting IPO which has
>     resulted in a firm that has a market cap far exceeding the Amazon
>     boogeyman, as well as Walmart's.  (not that there is anything wrong
>     with Alibaba, but obsessively picking on the little guy/small(er)
>     business - Amazon ; ) - seems to be misplaced and unhelpful to
>     multistakeholder dialog and governance. (OK to be fair JNC is in
>     good company picking on Amazon, since like JNC, Wall Street is also
>     giving Amazon a hard time of late, as are European publishers
>     Hachette and Springer who are also managing to push back against
>     Amazon themselves. Anyway, this anti-Amazon obsession of some is but
>     a sideshow/distraction to consideration of broader Internet
>     governance issues and should therefore carry limited  weight in
>     IGC's own considerations, although of course everyone is free to
>     voice whatever views they wish, whether of Amazon or something more
>     relevant to the issues at hand.
>  4.
>     Last but not least, the historical triumph of - cgi.br and ICANN
>     coopting WEF - to facilitate industry engagement in broader IG
>     policy issues discussions and implementations should be recognized
>     for what it is, and not mistaken for a sign of the failure but
>     rather is a mark of success/the mainstreaming of Internet
>     governance, as matters of truly global Import and requiring truly
>     global solutions.
>
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma <mailto:nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* ‎Sunday‎, ‎November‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎10‎:‎42‎ ‎PM
> *To:* <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
> 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
> <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear David Cake,
>
>
>     On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>             <mailto: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%209845437730> | Tel:91 80
>                 26654134 <tel:91%2080%2026654134>, 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
>                 <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
>
>
>             ____________________________________________________________
>             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
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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