[governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Nov 26 05:02:37 EST 2014
On Monday 24 November 2014 10:06 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> 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.
>
JNC confronts illegal concentration and use of power, wherever, and done
by whosoever. In the current 'global Internet' scenario, it is the US
political establishment and US based mega Internet companies that have
shown the greatest proclivity towards such concentration and misuse of
digital power. This perception is shared by an overwhelming number of
people the world over. If this is not your perception, then well, I
think you are simply wrong, and I cannot do much about it. As and when
Alibaba poses a problem to the global public interest we will speak up
against it, be assured of that.
It is fine if sitting in the US, you see a perfectly good world, with no
bad guys that need to be confronted. However, marginalised groups in
marginalised areas, who bear the brunt of holding the wrong end of the
stick of global structural power, are unable to be so sanguine and try
their best to oppose wrongful/ illegitimate structural power, and
wherever possible wrest some empowerment for themselves. That is what
JNC's advocacy and work is about.
> 1.
> (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.
> 2.
> Last but not least, the historical triumph of - cgi.br and ICANN
> coopting WEF -
>
Please do not twist history to create self serving triumphs... It is
fairly well know, including to you, that it is ICANN and the WEF who
first cooked up the NMI broth, and then when it did not work our in the
first round in August - September, and they faced a lot of opposition,
they thought of this brilliant idea of coopting CGi-Br . And so in the
version 2 of NMI we see CGI.Br who wasnt there in ver 1. So, you got it
backwards on who coopted whom... And you would know more as the
initiative proceeds, and can see who would call the shots.
Further, keeping aside who among the the currently listed three partners
coopted whom among themselves, it is certainly clear that civil society
is being coopted.
parminder
> 1.
> 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
> <http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141126/8b41a0b3/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