[discuss] NetMundial Initiative

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Aug 14 15:10:57 UTC 2014


Thanks for this excellent post Anriette.  Obviously, I agree 
whole-heartedly.  I am very glad you are going, and I wish you all the 
luck in the world.  You will likely need it.
Best wishes.
Stephanie Perrin
On 14-08-14 8:00 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Writing this in my personal capacity. My organisation, the Association 
> for Progressive Communications, has not yet finalised its reaction to 
> this discussion.
>
> I have not been involved in the NETmundial initiative, but have been 
> aware of it since ICANN 50 in London. I have been invited to the 28 
> August event.
>
> Aside from those concerns already stated on this list, which I share, 
> I want to add I am not convinced that this initiative, based at the 
> WEF, and adopting a 'get all the great leaders into the room' approach 
> is what is really needed to build on the substantial achievements of 
> the NETmundial.
>
> I have always been an admirer of initiative and risk taking in the 
> service of the 'greater good' and I don't want to condemn the 
> NETmundial initiative or its initiators.  I do believe it should be 
> viewed critically however, as a lot is at stake.
>
> Getting process right is never easy, but it is important to try hard 
> to do so, particularly when building something that is intended to be 
> long term.
>
> The NETmundial process was not perfect, but it made a HUGE effort to 
> be inclusive and transparent. The degree to which it succeeded 
> contributed to its legitimacy and success.  The NETmundial Initiative 
> needs to consider this very carefully. Of course it makes sense to 
> work with smaller groups of people to get any initiative going, but in 
> the internet world, and probably in the world everywhere these days, 
> not being transparent about how these smaller groups are constituted 
> and how they operate is 1) a lost cause as leaking can be assumed, 2) 
> not necessary and 3) probably somewhat foolish.
>
> But assuming that the NETmundial Initiative process will become more 
> transparent and inclusive in the next few weeks, I still have a 
> fundamental concern about its format and location.  I am not convinced 
> that it is tactically what is really needed to build on the 
> substantial achievements of the NETmundial, the IGF before it, and the 
> many people who have tried to make multi-stakeholder internet policy 
> processes work in the real world over the last decade.
>
> My reasons are (mostly) as follows:
>
> *1) Choice of 'location' in the context of power and politics in 
> multi-stakeholder internet governance*
>
> Most of us consider the NETmundial a success and the NETmundial 
> statement a strong, positive document that avoids the traps of 'cheap' 
> consensus.
>
> By that I mean that the final statement reflects consensus, 
> disagreement, and issues that need follow-up and further elaboration. 
> That not all agreed on the pre-final draft (there were some last 
> minute disagreements about text related to intermediary liability and 
> surveillance) with the final version reflecting these negotiations 
> actually makes it an even stronger document, in my view, even if some 
> of the text I would have liked to see in it was excluded. To me this 
> represents that the stakeholders involved in the development of the 
> text were able to work together, and disagree. The disagreement was 
> resolved in favour of the more power and influential - not civil 
> society of course. I don't mind this. It reflects reality. And I know 
> that civil society did also gain hugely with most of our demands 
> making it through. Over time these power arrangements might change, 
> and those of us working for the public interested in these processes 
> have to keep on contesting, and negotiating. Multi-stakeholder 
> processes where this does not happen are not worth the time we spend 
> on them.
>
> Power and influence matters, and will continue to do so. In choosing a 
> site for taking the NETmundial forward attention has to be given to 
> ensuring that it is a platform where dynamics related to power and 
> influence among stakeholders in IG is able to play themselves out on a 
> relatively equal playing field, with that playing field becoming more 
> equal as time goes on.
>
> WEF does not provide this.  Yes, certain big name civil society 
> leaders attend WEF meetings. Others are present. Developing country 
> leaders also attend, and it is seen as a powerful pro-business, pro US 
> and Europe forum for reaching business leaders, and facilitating 
> networking among the prominent and powerful (with some being both).
>
> But is it the right space to establish something sustained, inclusive 
> and bottom up that can gradually lead the way in building the 
> legitimacy and inclusiveness needed to operationalise the NETmundial 
> outcomes at global, regional, and national levels? I don't think so.
>
> I say this not to disrespect the staff of the WEF or people who 
> participate in WEF forums, or of ICANN, or anyone else involved in the 
> NETmundial initiative. But first and foremost as someone from a 
> developing country who has experienced the ups and downs and highs and 
> lows of multistakeholder IG for a long time and secondly as a member 
> of civil society. To me WEF simply does not feel like a space where 
> developing country people and civil society will ever have a equal 
> power with powerful "northern" governments and global business.
>
> *2) What do we really need to **operationalise and consolidate the 
> NETmundial outcomes?
>
> *Glamorous gatherings of the powerful and prominent in IG (be they 
> government, from the north and the south, tech community, business or 
> civil society) will help to keep networking going, create the 
> opportunity for self-congratulation for those of us who were part of 
> the NETmundial in some way (and I had the privilege to make 
> submissions online, and to be involved in the co-chairing some of the 
> drafting on site in Sao Paulo).
>
> But is that what is really needed to integrate what the NETmundial 
> stands for (public interested, democratic multistakeholder and human 
> rights oriented internet governance) into the day to day running of 
> the internet in ways that will be felt by existing and future users?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> I think that what is needed is  building lasting (and they have to be 
> very strong because they will be attacked) bridges between a process 
> such as NETmundial, and its outcomes, and institutions and people that 
> make governance and regulatory decisions on a day to day basis. I want 
> to see, for example, freedom of expression online enshrined in the 
> contitutions of very government of the world. I want governments (and 
> where relevant, businesses) to be held accountable for making sure 
> that all people everywhere can access the internet.
>
> This means engaging those that are not yet part of the 
> multi-stakeholder internet governance 'in-crowd'.  It requires working 
> with national governments. Regional intergovernmental bodies as well 
> as international onces, including those in the UN system.
>
> Will a NETmundial Initiative based at the WEF prevent the rejection of 
> multi-stakeholder processes (and of women's rights for that matter) 
> that was evident in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation?  
> Or efforts among ITU member states to increase governmental oversight 
> over internet governance? Or tension between blocks of states with 
> divides between the developed and the developing world?
>
> I think that is the test it will need to pass with flying colours if 
> it were to make the gains that are needed, and that are not already 
> being made through processes such as the IGF, even if only in part. 
> And a good starting point would be to identify how those governments 
> that were at the NETmundial, but whom did not support the final 
> statement publicly (some said publicly they did not support it, and 
> others failed to show support simply by staying silent).
>
> How do they feel about this WEF-based NETmundial initiative? I see 
> some of them are invited. I know of at least one, present in Sao Paulo 
> and invited to the NETmundial Initiative, who does not support either.
>
> Apologies for ranting and raving somewhat. The point I am trying to 
> make is that for internet regulation across the ecosystem to comply 
> with the principles in the NETmundial statement and get get the 
> NETmundial roadmap used as a guide we don't need more expensive global 
> gatherings.  We need existing governance institutions and processes, 
> including those not yet on the multi-stakeholder bandwagon, to 
> consider and adopt NETmundial principles and integrate those into 
> their governance decisions and processes. And I am not convinced that 
> a WEF based forum constituted in the way the NETmundial Initiative has 
> been, is up to that task.
>
> *3) NETmundial **Initiative and the IGF and the broader internet 
> community*
>
> The NETmundial outcome documents mentions the IGF repeatedly. It 
> recommends strengthening of the IGF, and asks the IGF to take the 
> discussion of complex IG issues forward. This reflects both the inputs 
> received prior to the Sao Paulo meeting, as well as deliberations in 
> Sao Paulo.  It reflects the will of those from ALL stakeholder groups 
> who participated in the NETmundial.
>
> I therefore find completely inappropriate that an initiative which 
> takes the name of the NETmundial, and which sets out to take the 
> NETmundial outcomes forward, does not have a closer link to the IGF.
>
> In fact, at the very least it should have used the IGF as a platform 
> for presenting itself and getting feedback from the broader community 
> active in the internet governance ecosystem which has been using the 
> IGF as its primary discussion space.
>
> The IGF is an existing forum that is still linked to the UN system, 
> and through that, to those parts of the internet governance ecosystem 
> populated by governments. It is a bridge. It needs to be stronger, and 
> used more, but it exists and many of us has put a lot of work into it 
> over the last 8 years.
>
> Without much capacity and resources, the IGF continues year after 
> year, overwhelmed with a demand from the internet community it cannot 
> come close to meet (e.g. no of workshop proposals that cannot be 
> accommodated). Regional and national IGFs have their own trajectory 
> too.. ups and downs there too.. but overall becoming more inclusive.  
> The IGF process has not even begun to fulfill its potential. 
> Particularly not at the level of interacting with other institutions 
> and capturing and communicating the outcomes from IGF discussions 
> effectively.
>
> 1000s of people have been working in this IGF processes, people who 
> are trying to create change on the ground by getting different 
> stakeholder groups to listen to one another and work towards a more 
> inclusive and fair internet. People who are trying to find 
> constructive ways of challenging practices (be they driven by 
> governments or business) that, for example. blocks affordable access, 
> or free expression on the internet.  If you count all the IGFs around 
> the world we are talking about 10s of thousands of people.  The lack 
> of respect shown to all these people and organisations by NETmundial 
> Initiative rings loud alarm bells in my ears.
>
> I might be overly sensitive.  I will really happy if my skepticism 
> proves to be unfounded as I really do believe that we need democratic 
> multi-stakeholder governance of the internet, and I believe that the 
> NETmundial principles can help us get there.
>
> I guess I am also somewhat saddened.. having invested so much in th 
> NETmundial, that this, the first initiative after April 2014 to take 
> its name, is doing such a bad job at living up to what the NETmundial 
> process principles advocate.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 14/08/2014 09:52, Chris Disspain wrote:m
>>> I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to 
>>> attention of the industry leaders and key government representatives 
>>> Internet governance issues, emphasising the need of preservation and 
>>> promotion of the multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the 
>>> IGF as a multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging 
>>> participation in its work of those companies and governments that 
>>> haven't been involved until kn
>> (l
>> Yes, that is also my understanding. A particular emphasis was made of 
>> supporting the IGF but, I guess, time will tell.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers, wha
>>
>>
>> Chri
>>
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2014, at 17:39 , Janis Karklins <karklinsj at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:karklinsj at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> As being one of invited to the launch event of the WEF initiative I 
>>> would like to share information that I possess.
>>> The World Economic Forum is an international institution committed 
>>> to improving the state of the world through public-private 
>>> cooperation (statement on the website). WEF communities are various 
>>> and more can be seen at http://www 
>>> <http://www/>.weforum.org/communities. Organizationally the WEF is 
>>> membership organization where big multinationals from all over the 
>>> world are widely represented. The WEF invites representatives of 
>>> governments, academia, civil society, world of arts participate in 
>>> their meetings and engage with key industry leaders. This explains 
>>> why the invitees list is one you see.
>>> I was told that the initiative is geared towards bringing to 
>>> attention of the industry leaders and key government representatives 
>>> Internet governance issues, emphasising the need of preservation and 
>>> promotion of the multi-stakeholder model, as well as supporting the 
>>> IGF as a multi-stakeholder discussion platform by enlarging 
>>> participation in its work of those companies and governments that 
>>> haven't been involved until know.
>>> I know that Alan Markus intends to present and discuss the 
>>> initiative at the 2014 IGF meeting and there will be ample 
>>> opportunity for the IG community to clarify details.
>>> I hope that this information is useful.
>>> JK
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com 
>>> <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     *Current status of IG debate:* we need leaks to know what is
>>>     going on! Pretty bad for a start.
>>>
>>>     @jordan carter: "why a noted business centred forum is the place
>>>     to launch an Internet governance initiative?" - a question to be
>>>     echoed indeed.
>>>
>>>     It is a shame after the whole attempt of NETMudial to innovate
>>>     in a meeting process, seeking some transparency, openness and
>>>     inclusion, something like this comes up under the same "brand".
>>>     Hello Brazil?!
>>>
>>>     @jeremy and members of the so called "evil cabal", if you go,
>>>     you have an important role to feed people with the most
>>>     important asset: information. I bet we will be always prompt for
>>>     feedback.
>>>
>>>     hoping for the best, though looking at... the worst?
>>>
>>>     regards
>>>
>>>     joana
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     -- 
>>>
>>>     Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>     @joana_varon
>>>     PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Seth Johnson
>>>     <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com <mailto:seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         More that the IGF phase wasn't going to work.  IGF has
>>>         always been in
>>>         a tough spot, not so much fumbling the ball -- as if that's
>>>         anything
>>>         other than an endemic feature of any organization of a similar
>>>         institutional nature -- but not empowered and pining for
>>>         standing.
>>>         But Netmundial wasn't executed well in that regard (they
>>>         announced
>>>         sponsorship of IGF, but they also weren't quite able to make
>>>         things
>>>         stick), so they need to patch he information society process
>>>         up by a
>>>         more blunt move that steps past IGF rather than going through a
>>>         process of engaging folks in issues via IGF as per plan.  I
>>>         think
>>>         they're figuring they'll be able to just brazen it out.
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm
>>>         <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>         > I think it's more the case that the IGF has so badly
>>>         fumbled the ball that
>>>         > it falls to someone - anyone - else to pick it up. But
>>>         that is not to
>>>         > discount the valid criticisms that others have expressed
>>>         and that I agree
>>>         > with.
>>>         >
>>>         > Disclaimer: I'm a member of the evil cabal.
>>>         >
>>>         > --
>>>         > Jeremy Malcolm
>>>         > Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>>         > Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>         > https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
>>>         > jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>         >
>>>         > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>>         >
>>>         > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>         >
>>>         > On Aug 13, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Jordan Carter
>>>         <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
>>>         wrote:
>>>         >
>>>         > Can someone explain why a noted business centred forum is
>>>         the place to
>>>         > launch an Internet governance initiative?
>>>         >
>>>         > I genuinely don't understand that.
>>>         >
>>>         > I thought the whole lesson of netmundial was that genuine
>>>         multi stakeholder
>>>         > approaches work well, not that it was a nice experiment to
>>>         be ignored.
>>>         >
>>>         > It would be helpful if those who rule us, as it were,
>>>         would rapidly disclose
>>>         > some authoritative information.
>>>         >
>>>         > Jordan
>>>         >
>>>         > On Thursday, 14 August 2014, Stephen Farrell
>>>         <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie <mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie>>
>>>         > wrote:
>>>         >>
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Gotta say... seems like elitist nonsense to me having looked
>>>         >> at the invite list and other docs. The elitist part should be
>>>         >> obvious. The nonsense part is due to  almost none of the list
>>>         >> of invitees being known for knowing about the Internet. It
>>>         >> seems much more an elite than an Internet-savvy list of folks
>>>         >> being asked to form a new cabal. That said, cabals aren't all
>>>         >> bad, and I've no reason to think very badly of this
>>>         particular
>>>         >> subset of the elite and its I guess just more meaningless
>>>         policy
>>>         >> stuff so I don't need to care very much.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> That said, it seems a pity for this to be the next step after
>>>         >> the Brazil gig which seemed relatively open.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> S.
>>>         >>
>>>         >>
>>>         >> On 14/08/14 02:36, William Drake wrote:
>>>         >> > Hi
>>>         >> >
>>>         >> > I proposed several times to the 1NET Co Com that 1NET
>>>         explore serving as
>>>         >> > a more open multistakeholder vehicle for connecting
>>>         people to the NETmundial
>>>         >> > Initiative.  Several members expressed support for
>>>         that, but since how the
>>>         >> > NMI will evolve remains very unclear it's hard to know
>>>         ex ante how this
>>>         >> > could work.  I made the same suggestion to Fadi in
>>>         London, didn't get much
>>>         >> > reaction.
>>>         >> >
>>>         >> > As I understand the basic idea, NMI will have a six
>>>         month launch managed
>>>         >> > by WEF but the hope would be that this leads to
>>>         something broader and more
>>>         >> > inclusive in a second phase.  Not how I would have done
>>>         it, but that said I
>>>         >> > wouldn't assume before the fact that the second phase
>>>         will not come.  We
>>>         >> > have to see for starters how the conversation goes 28
>>>         August and what is
>>>         >> > possible...
>>>         >> >
>>>         >> > Bill
>>>         >> >
>>>         >> > On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
>>>         <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>>>         >> >
>>>         >> >> Hi,
>>>         >> >>
>>>         >> >> Just wondering, is this a proper list for those who
>>>         have been catching
>>>         >> >> bits and pieces of the ICANN/WEF 'NetMundial
>>>         Initiaitve' to be
>>>         >> >> discussed.
>>>         >> >>
>>>         >> >> I think it might be, and have even suggested it to
>>>         others, but figured
>>>         >> >> I
>>>         >> >> better check first.
>>>         >> >>
>>>         >> >>
>>>         >> >> avri
>>>         >> >>
>>>         >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>         >> >> discuss mailing list
>>>         >> >> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>         >> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>         >> >
>>>         >> >
>>>         >> > _______________________________________________
>>>         >> > discuss mailing list
>>>         >> > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>         >> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>         >> >
>>>         >>
>>>         >> _______________________________________________
>>>         >> discuss mailing list
>>>         >> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>         >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>         >
>>>         >
>>>         >
>>>         > --
>>>         > --
>>>         > Jordan Carter
>>>         > Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>>         >
>>>         > +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> |
>>>         jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>>         >
>>>         > Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>>>         >
>>>         > _______________________________________________
>>>         > discuss mailing list
>>>         > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>         > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>         >
>>>         >
>>>         > _______________________________________________
>>>         > discuss mailing list
>>>         > discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>         > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         discuss mailing list
>>>         discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>         http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     discuss mailing list
>>>     discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> -- 
> `````````````````````````````````
> anriette esterhuysen
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
> anriette at apc.org
> www.apc.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140814/dbc30257/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list