[governance] Re: [bestbits] CSCG - participation in selection of civil society representatives for NMI Coordination Council

[Young-eum Lee]

I am in full agreement with Nnenna.

- kind regards,
- Young-eum.

Young-eum Lee
Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National
Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/>
Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU
Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/>
ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member
<http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm>
Chairman, 7th Daum Open User Committee <http://blog.daum.net/openuser>

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Very many thanks, Bertrand
>
> What I was confused about is the idea that IGC and BB are now institutions
> that "want to join" NMI. I have been under the impression that these are
> Civil Society platforms for action.
>
> My stand has been clear, if there are people who are willing to engage in
> a certain course (whatever their reasons are) then the platforms should
> facilitate that. One does not necessarily need to agree all the time with
> what others are doing.
>
> People should be free to engage
> People should be free to disengage
> People should be free not to engage
>
> I dont think that there will ever be a time when one person (or a group of
> persons for that matter) will be able to fully represent all the
> aspirations of the global civil society.
>
> Nnenna
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle <
> bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Parminder,
>>
>> I think Ian has managed to express in a very balanced and respectful
>> manner the very diverse perspectives within civil society, including yours
>> (and the JNC), by explicitly mentioning the reservations and the caution
>> with which some people and CS groups accept to engage in the NMI exercise.
>> I think he deserves more credit than what you express in response.
>>
>> My understanding of democracy is neither the domination of the majority,
>> nor the veto of a minority. We see too often what this produces at national
>> levels. In the present case, some actors are willing to give it a try after
>> having, I think, carefully pondered the opinions you expressed. It is your
>> full right to disagree but not your right to prevent them from exercising
>> their willing choice or demean them by claiming they have "betrayed the
>> powerless". Only time will tell whether they were wrong or not.
>>
>> As a general note, I still fail to see, after several years, whether you
>> want to propose any other mechanism than traditional intergovernmental
>> processes - limited to representatives from governments - as the proper
>> architecture for the democratic Internet governance you desire. If you have
>> other ideas, we are certainly all interested in innovative frameworks that
>> would be different from what is attempted here with the NMI. If not, what
>> place do you see in such purely governmental processes for civil society?
>> None? Or just outside of the room? Tell me if I missed something here.
>>
>> More generally, I wonder what makes you have faith in the capacity of
>> purely intergovernmental fora to achieve progress in the absence of
>> sufficient agreement among all governments? In the past ten years, such
>> fora have hardly produced anything more than copy and paste of various
>> paragraphs of the WSIS documents (I know from experience, having
>> contributed to several of CSTD drafting exercises, for instance).
>>
>> The most innovative efforts, albeit still imperfect, have been undertaken
>> by non-UN organizations, such as the Council of Europe or OECD, but they do
>> not have universal membership.
>>
>> We need solutions for key issues and we currently do not have the proper
>> structures and processes to address them. The NETmundial Initiative is
>> certainly not perfect, but it is at least an effort to keep the momentum
>> produced by he Sao Paulo event and it does not pretend to have a monopoly.
>> Nobody prevents anyone from initiating competing efforts. But doing nothing
>> does not seem a viable or valuable option.
>>
>> Respectfully
>>
>> Bertrand
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
>> Saint Exupéry
>> ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND
>> DE LA CHAPELLEInternet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail
>> bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.netemail bdelachapelle at gmail.com
>> twitter @IJurisdiction <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> |
>> @bdelachapelle <https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle>mobile +33 (0)6 11 88
>> 33 32www.internetjurisdiction.net[image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER
>> DIALOGUE PROCESS]
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is a pity that major civil society groups finally decided to go with
>>> the WEF's NMI, albeit repackaged to look somewhat better that the WEF
>>> itself. This could be a paradigm shift and a historic day for the
>>> global governance of the Internet, of course in a bad way.
>>>
>>> The existing centres of Internet power, almost all US based ones, have
>>> achieved a significant objective. Really a champagne-uncorking day for
>>> them. They have managed to shift the attention from the US centredness
>>> of the global Internet, which was increasingly becoming  too
>>> uncomfortable and unsustainable, towards relatively greater globality of
>>> the Internet's power establishment. (In the short term, this will help them
>>> address WSIS plus 10 'problems', but can have significant long terms gains
>>> as well.) Being able to win global popular support was extremely unlikely
>>> with the kind of stuff that these Internet powers do, which is increasingly
>>> common knowledge. Such democratic seekings are passe, really old-fashioned.
>>> And so they went for the easier catch - the global elite. It is an elite
>>> which often already identifies with a certain US centric global
>>> cosmopolitan-ism (grudging accepting the the US centred-ness of this global
>>> cultural phenomenon and hoping to cosmopolitan-ise it). To the extent even
>>> if some of them do not so accept - like some kinds of political and
>>> economic elites outside the US - it is ready to make power-for-power big
>>> deals and adjustments. That is what the World Economic Forum is, and
>>> everyone know this fact. But this is something to which a big part of civil
>>> society involved in the IG space today professed a complete blindness.
>>>
>>> In reaching the World Economic Forum, and somewhat centring itself on
>>> it, the global IG establishment has provided clearer contours to what in
>>> any case has been one of the most significant elements of the global
>>> politics around the Internet. This is the uneasy political relationship
>>> between the globally mobile (now even more mobile, virtually) or at least
>>> aspirational upper classes and the more locally rooted, and yes, well,
>>> rather constrained, rest-of-the-world, even if often domiciled in the same
>>> territory and polity. Much of global Internet politics, captured in the
>>> phenomenon of multistakeholderism, represents a combination of political,
>>> economic and social elites of the world, and across the world (with its
>>> continuous demeaning of the nation state while taking all the benefit of
>>> its institutions). This political combination now has a clear home at the
>>> WEF, and in it, a clear symbol as well. It is spine-chilling to think what
>>> kind of deals and compromises will be worked out among the most powerful,
>>> now with the more acceptable tag of a certain globalness attached to them.
>>>
>>> This globalness achieved by bringing together the elite of the world may
>>> be worse than the status quo, which fact worries me the most. In the status
>>> quo there was at least the stark legitimacy hole, and certain possibilities
>>> of joining of forces among those outside the global Internet power
>>> configuration, the rich and the poor alike, to put it somewhat
>>> simplistically. The WEF brings to the global IG establishment not only a
>>> new legitimacy of a certain globalness, but also divides those who would
>>> otherwise be together in their opposition to the US hegemony. Now the top
>>> businesses of developing countries can feel more equal with those from the
>>> US at WEF panels and working groups, and the leaders of the more powerful
>>> developing countries can be variously flattered and offered selective sops.
>>> That celebrated meeting of fat cats in the snow at Davos. A perfect photo
>>> op. Just the poor, the disposed and the marginalised are missing. They are
>>> missing from the forums which would now entrech, as well as develop new,
>>> means for ever greater digital control over them. The structures of
>>> controls will see minor shifts and adjustments on the top, with concessions
>>> thrown around within the narrow elite circles, and those left out will all
>>> be worse for these adjustment and changes. This is how the new global
>>> paradigm is a great regression from even the status quo.
>>>
>>> The first country to welcome the WEF's NMI was the US, and also the
>>> first to offer itself for a seat in the NMI Council. The second one seeking
>>> a seat is Russia. So, you get the picture! (Lets not talk about the
>>> Brazilians. They really do not seem to know what they are doing, God
>>> forgive them.) The powerful have decided what they plan to do, or not do,
>>> about the global governance of the Internet. Now the powerless and the
>>> exploited need to figure what they should  do; what is their response
>>> to this new global Internet power configuration. But for that they first
>>> need an organised civil society to direct and lead them, because most of
>>> the existing one in the IG space has betrayed them. It is a difficult
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wednesday 26 November 2014 03:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Civil Society members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> After a substantial consultation with members across many different
>>> constituencies, the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group
>>> (CSCG) has decided that, in accordance with its procedures and with the
>>> conditions in the letter below, it will engage in the process of selection
>>> of self nominated civil society representatives for the Co ordination
>>> Council of the Netmundial Initiative (NMI).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In doing so, we acknowledge and respect that Just Net Coalition has
>>> determined not to engage in this process, and that there are many civil
>>> society people in other coalitions who would also prefer not to engage at
>>> this time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those who choose to engage; if you wish to be a candidate, you must
>>> complete the form which can be found at
>>> https://www.netmundial.org/coordination-council-nominations, together
>>> with the associated documentation, by December 6. Please note that CSCG
>>> will not be endorsing nominations but playing a selection role as outlined
>>> in the letter below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you everyone who participated in this consultation and freely
>>> expressed their opinions. Below is a letter recently sent to the organisers
>>> outlining CSCG’s position and involvement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  LETTER TO NMI TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group
>>> (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working
>>> with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the
>>> NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation,
>>> drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the
>>> Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting
>>> with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of
>>> this opportunity at all.  We must say that this has been a difficult
>>> question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings
>>> across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective
>>> involvement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the
>>> World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and
>>> political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the
>>> Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its
>>> three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and
>>> resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the
>>> Internet Governance Forum.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for
>>> civil society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but
>>> not the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite
>>> significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement
>>> stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the
>>> process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad
>>> civil society support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from
>>> civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination
>>> Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle
>>> that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil
>>> society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our
>>> colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be
>>> participating with us in this exercise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The process we have agreed to work with is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all
>>> nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s
>>> suitability.
>>>
>>> 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and
>>> submits names to Transitional Council with reasons.
>>>
>>> 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual)
>>> meeting with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to
>>> reaching a rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our
>>> nominations. If there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of
>>> civil society they may also be invited to participate after discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising
>>> partners to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those
>>> who self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also
>>> outline five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely
>>> to affirm following their appointment to the Coordination Council:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br,
>>> WEF and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council
>>> and what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above
>>> organisations are jointly funding the operational expenses of the
>>> Initiative for its first year, this might not remain so. We are not
>>> convinced that funding support is sufficient justification for such a role,
>>> and we believe that the full Coordination Council itself should approve any
>>> permanent seats and what that implies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is
>>> "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out
>>> that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the
>>> fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to
>>> legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and
>>> should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial
>>> Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of
>>> Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges
>>> that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap
>>> as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or
>>> augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to
>>> undertake this work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the
>>> extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet
>>> Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general
>>> multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF
>>> develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not
>>> fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is
>>> providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with
>>> these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a
>>> balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the
>>> Coordination Council.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Participating member coalitions*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia
>>> Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet
>>> Governance Programmes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango,
>>> Co-Coordinator
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin
>>> Gross, NCSG Executive Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter, Independent Chair
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20141127/319e87c8/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