[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
Akinremi Peter Taiwo
compsoftnet at gmail.com
Mon Nov 24 15:30:11 EST 2014
WEF can not dominate NMI with their styles so let get involve.
On Nov 24, 2014 10:23 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20141124/4c604871/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