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

[parminder]

On Monday 24 November 2014 10:07 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> This is the kind of drivel that is more likely to make people support 
> NMI than oppose it.
>

Dear Milton

First of all, thanks for being so bothered about people supporting NMI. 
We agree on this. But only this far.

Your reasons for advocating that civil society as a group should not 
support NMI seems to relate to its single, hegemonic nature and that the 
process is neither clear, nor equal or inclusive.

JNC's primary reasons from staying away are different, which of course 
you know (which is perhaps why you censored the JNC statement on NMI 
from your blog :), which sure is your editorial freedom). Our reasons 
focus on the the idea of social justice and, in the  negative, 
neoliberalism, which in our view are respectively compromised and 
advanced in partnering with the WEF in developing a global governance 
platform.  We also believe that the process issues about the WEF-ICANN's 
NMI are structurally related to substantive issues, and thus cannot be 
improved just because some civil society people or groups lean on 'them' 
to do it.

You of course do not agree with these concerns. You have said on the IGC 
list that you do not think that 'social justice' means anything at all. 
We know that this term is mainstream for much of global civil society, 
and even including foundations like the Ford Foundation, which 
incidentally has been funding you (or any rate was at the time you 
mentioned your disbelief in the very idea of social justice)..

Further you have said recently in your blog that it is time we "faced 
the fact that the internet is entirely a product of neoliberal 
policies". So you  do support neoliberal policies. Incidentally, 
mainstream global civil society does not. World Social Forum was formed 
both in direct opposition to neoliberal policies being pursued the 
world-over, and to its most definitive symbol, the World Economic Forum.

We therefore can see that you do not have objections to the expected 
substantive thrusts of an WEF led NMI. We would not have been surprised 
if you had supported the WEF dominated NMI, and if you have not, we can 
understand that this is due to some peripheral reasons, as you make 
clear in an subsequent email to Carlos.

What surprises and pains us however is that part of civil society, 
including in Brazil, which would normally be seen talking about social 
justice and against neoliberal policies. We are surprised that many 
elements of this civil society can actually argue that even with WEF 
centrally there, an NMI can lead to outcomes for social justice and 
against neoliberalisation of everything, which is what the WEF is wedded 
to. This despite having shown direct quotes to these people from WEF 
documents that they have a clear plan for the IG space, as a lead 
element for neoliberalisation of governance of other spaces.

The plan centrally includes non-democratic models of governance, where 
the elites, with some selective cooptations govern the world. And 
therefore 'bad process' is tied to the substantive WEF thinking. And if 
they ever make some adjustments to this 'bad process' is will only be 
for the sake of temporarily co-opting some important constituencies, as 
they may be trying to do now.  That some civil society people here think 
that they can actually change the WEF from its known and entreched ways 
of thinking (which are in fact its/raison d'être/ ) is almost funny.

Civil society partnering with the WEF on a global governance initiative 
is not the civil society we knew. It is something new. But new can be 
interesting. Lets see where it leads us..

parminder

> Another clarification with regard to Internet governance is needed for 
> the period in which Lula presided Brazil, there was a Brazilian 
> multilateral diplomatic position, which did not accept the Icann 
> /multistakeholdism/.
>
> MM: Yes, they were locked in the mentality of the past. They did not 
> understand the Internet and the more distributed governance models 
> emerging globally.
>
> It must be said that President Dilma Rousseffi, the opening of the 
> 68th General Assembly of the United Nations on 24 September 2013, held 
> in the Brazilian diplomatic tradition one multilateralist discourse, 
> which advocated a democratic governance, multilateral and open. What
>
> MM: “multilateral” meaning, “one country one vote,” which is of course 
> extremely undemocratic. Because it means not only that all the 
> diversity within each nation-state is unrepresented, but also that 
> undemocratic states have as much voting power as democratic ones. No 
> thank you!
>
> happened was a maneuver performed by the CGI-Br members to break the 
> diplomatic tradition of Brazil and make a meeting coordinated by ICANN 
> and I * that began to adopt /multistakeholdist/ ideology in the Sao 
> Paulo meeting, the NetMundial.
>
> MM: Yes, Brazil’s government seemed to (wisely) move toward acceptance 
> of a multi-stakeholder approach. To dismiss this as a “maneuver” by 
> CGI.br (I guess they are not true Brazilians) seems to be a denial of 
> reality. Or are you asserting that President Rousseff walked into the 
> meeting completely ignorant of what was going on? But OK, duly noted: 
> Mr. Pires joins Russia and Cuba in dissent against the Netmundial meeting.
>
> The meeting failed when not discussed the policies to fight the mass 
> surveillance carried out by the US, when not produced a single line on 
> the asymmetric model for the roots server system, when not opted to 
> set a clear policy favorable to net neutrality.
>
> MM: I was there, and recall many discussions of mass surveillance. And 
> the attacks on the unilateral approach to the DNS were mooted by the 
> NTIA announcement that they would end it. There were no discussions of 
> how to end it, but if you were paying attention there were many 
> discussions of what should replace it.
>
> To overcome the /multistakeholdist/ ideology of NetMundial Iniciative, 
> civil society organizations (as JNC), social movements in networks and 
> public and private actors need to engage in fights and discussions to 
> build a new model of IG, which guarantee: a) a worldwide organization 
> for Internet, that really represents the interests of all nation states
>
> MM: Wonderful. So it is not the people we want to represent, or even 
> Internet users and suppliers, but “nation-states?”
>
> and to ensure net neutrality and respect the Internet as a common 
> good; b) a worldwide Internet statement that has as principle the 
> protection of privacy, freedom of expression and to promote free and 
> universal access to the Internet and free software; c) a court with 
> international
>
> MM: …because, as we know, nation-states are so devoted to freedom of 
> expression, privacy and free software!
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141125/0248fc89/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