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

Wed Nov 26 04:54:59 EST 2014

Dear Parminder,

You ask for my opinion.
I think that there are two discussions here, and they are becoming
confused.
One is about the NETmundial Initiative (NMI), an assessment of its value if
any, and of the dangers it might represent.
The other is whether civil society should engage itself in the NMI process.
Engaging in the process has nothing necessarily to do with approval of NMI.
The response of some people is "have nothing to do with it", others prefer
to retain a voice in the proceedings.

As for IGC -
I have no legal training and cannot speak to "legality". My feeling is that
the time to complain about a process is at the beginning, rather than when
it has reached a conclusion. The Charter seems to me to give co -
coordinators space to deal with matters that are very urgent. The important
thing is that there should be transparency and consultation. In this case
there were both - transparency and consultation - and the consensus coming
out of this is that IGC as a group prefers to keep the line of
communication open. Mawaki has worked very hard on this as the IGC
representative on CSCG, and deserves our thanks.

There is another place where the discussion is confused. The CSCG is an
appropriate context for discussion of whether or not civil society should
join with NMI, but absent at least a rough consensus, and present such
widely opposed views, my own feeling is that, unless things change, the
CSCG should now withdraw from the selection process.

However the situation is changing very rapidly, and the nature of NMI is
changing with it.

I hope very much that at the end of the day we won't find that we have
thrown out the IGC baby in the NMI bathwater.

Deirdre

On 25 Nov 2014 09:01, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Mawaki
>
> I am sure that you know that there is a method listed in the IGC charter
to take collective decisions, and the method you are following is nowhere
close to that..
>
> In the circumstances, any correspondence you will make on IGC;s behalf as
representing an IGC decision on this issue will be illegal.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: Apart from the fact that you are simply not authorised to make a
decision on IGC's behalf, especially on such a contested matter as the
implicated one, the various 'considerations' and 'notings' that you base
your 'decision' on our either faulty or heavily contested, and you surely
know that.
>
> Interestingly, you have spoken of the need to take forward to evolve and
improve some sections of the Sao Paolo NM declaration, whereas a lot of
civil society supporters of the new NMI as well its promoters inside WEF
are insisting that the *new NMI is not at all a normative venue but is
bacially a platform for project based cooperation*. Now, with such a
faulty, or atleast contested, interpretation of the central purpose of the
new NMI, how can you reach a decision on the IGC's behalf.
>
> This is just one of the faulty/ contested considerations that you have
relied on, and there are many others that I can refer to.
>
> In the circumstances, please withdraw your ' decision'. Also for
Deirdre's comments. Please let us know what you think of the legality of
this 'decision'.
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 25 November 2014 02:56 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I have listened to your views, to your fears and concerns as well as to
your hopes and support. This one is really difficult a decision, probably
the most difficult IGC decision I will have to be involved in before the
expiration of my term.
>>
>> Taking into consideration all the responses, comments, explanations,
positions and advice received on the IGC list in response to this call,
whether under this email thread or in a different one since this call has
been posted;
>>
>> Noting that Deirdre, my co-coordinatorship mate, has also already
expressed herself on this question;
>>
>> Observing that most of the concerns and the strongest ones expressed
here relate more (albeit not exclusively) to the presence or participation
of the WEF as such in the NMI than to anything else;
>>
>> Considering that the NMI is a different undertaking from the WEF;
>>
>> Noting that the modus operandi of WEF may in itself be diametrically
opposed to, or at least is different from, the open, transparent, bottom-up
and consensus-seeking mode of operation that we value as civil society in
the IG field and which ICG,br and IGC agree to promote and uphold in
carrying forward the legacy of NETmundial2014;
>>
>> Noting that in that regard the goals pursued by WEF in global governance
may be at odds with the goals of civil society, and as a result there are
most likely many questions on which civil society and WEF may not agree on
in one increasingly prominent area of global governance to date (i.e, the
internet governance area);
>>
>> Noting that the IG space is one that is meant to be open to all
stakeholders who are willing to contribute, as long as they accept to live
up to that openness and the other basic rules of operation mentioned above
from the CS standpoint, without the pre-requisite of agreeing with each
others on their worldview or even on a set of core substantive issues;
>>
>> Noting that currently, the NMI is the beginning of something that still
needs to be shaped and can be shaped as have shown so far the amendments
that have been made by its proponents to their original plans after CS
feedback and criticism;
>>
>> Understanding that those amendments may have been made in order to lure
CS into NMI and that they may not guarantee any type of outcome on the long
run unless CS remains vigilant and keeps fighting for the outcomes it
wishes for or supports;
>>
>> Noting that the outcome of NETmundial2014 is not perfect and thus _at
least_ some sections of CS do not consider it as final in the sense that
some of its provisions may still need to evolve and be improved, but that
would be better achieved through the continuous collaborative work of the
various stakeholders rather than by fiat from one stakeholder (group);
>>
>> Considering that if CS resolves to join NMI, it is not lending
legitimacy to WEF in any way but to NMI which has already gained some
legitimacy by the CGI.br being one of its co-founders and will further gain
legitimacy by having a delegate of the IGF-MAG join the NMI's Coordination
Council (assuming its current design is implemented)*;
>>
>> I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by participating
in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society nominees to the NMI
Coordination Council.
>> On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that the
CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions that will be
meant to make sure the continuous participation of the CS and its
appointees is subject to being accountable to their constituents.
>>
>> CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the
acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI.
>>
>> Thank you for your participation in this consultation.
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>> (*) Excerpt from the https://www.netmundial.org/
>> The Coordination Council will have a total of 25 individual members: 20
distributed across four sectors and five geographies, and additional seats
(one each) for the organizational founders CGI.br and ICANN; one for the
World Economic Forum in its role of supporter of the Initiative; as well as
one seat each for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the
technical community (I* group).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141126/a20f962f/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