[discuss] [bestbits] [governance] Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Wed Jul 8 00:03:28 UTC 2015


Hi,

I am on the MAG this year, and I think that things like the Ungovernance
Forum are important to the overall well being of the IGF.  Though it
will change a bit at a time, the IGF changes slowly.  A though I think
we are making progress, it  needs to be pushed.  The alternative and
complementary programs that are being initiated around the IGF enrich
the IGF and can only motivate us to do a better job.  Something that
will always be needed.

I also support the work of the DCs and hope that we start to see output
from these that becomes useful input to other efforts.  It may be a
first step and still a small one, but we are trying to make it
possible.  I think finally getting around to some of the improvements
the CSTD WG on IGF Improvements recommended is a good thing, if a little
late.  I think there is a new spirit in the MAG, and though at times we
might still be slow to make or accept changes and stuck in the status
quo, we are trying and I think improving.

As for the deliberative panel, I am curious to see what they come up with.

I think that even if we can't all support, or agree with, each and every
activity that shows up around the IGF, we should celebrate the fact that
they are happening.  I do.

avri


On 07-Jul-15 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> I am not involved with the Ungovernance Forum and agree with Carlos,
> George and Susan that it overstates its case a little.  However I also
> think that before jumping on the defensive too much, we should
> acknowledge that its criticisms do represent a widely held view within
> civil society, amongst those who find IGF meetings to be irrelevant
> junkets at best, and at worst a captured and reactionary platform for
> opposing real change.  Regardless of how open the IGF may be to
> hosting workshops with diverse views, for many activists its
> resistance to developing the capacity to propose policy solutions (as
> merely the first step towards change) renders all that for naught.
>
> You can agree with it or not, but that such a view is held is not even
> debatable - I hear it all the time, and it's what prevents the IGF
> community from growing much beyond the insiders who inhabit it at
> present.  And that's a real problem for the IGF that only it can solve
> - and that its MAG should bear closely in mind when considering the
> current proposals for incremental change such as the validation of
> outputs from dynamic coalitions, and the planned deliberative poll.
>
> On 6/07/2015 11:58 pm, Susan Chalmers wrote:
>> +1, Carlos y George.
>>
>> Willi - I reckon the Unconference will be lovely and I plan to
>> attend, at least in part, given commitments.
>>
>> As a MAG member who has given a lot of her free time to coordinating
>> (for the first time) the drafting of guidelines for workshop
>> proposals, and with the help of the community translating said
>> guidelines into multiple languages
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/considerations-for-workshop-proposers#unofficial-translations>
>> (which I suspect led to the marked increase of proposals from
>> first-timers and developing countries), I would say that the
>> characterisation of the IGF in your email is not entirely on point.
>>
>> With that said, if the Ungovernance forum would like to distinguish
>> itself from the IGF, then I'd suggest emphasizing the "bar camp style
>> <http://barcamp.org/w/page/405173/TheRulesOfBarCamp>" of organization
>> of the program (i.e. made on the day with those participants
>> involved, all-inclusive) as opposed to making broad and sweeping
>> statements about the integrity of the IGF. 
>>
>> Let's be positive and collaborative here, not combative. :)
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Susan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan Chalmers
>> susan at chalmers.associates
>>
>> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
>> http://chalmers.associates
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:31 PM, George Sadowsky
>> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Carlos,
>>
>>     Thank you for your comprehensive note and for being a voice of
>>     reason.  IGF truly _is_ what different stakeholders make of it.
>>
>>     George
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Jul 6, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
>>     <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>     > Dear people,
>>     >
>>     > I write this, as usual, in my personal capacity, now with the
>>     help of a
>>     > few other colleagues.
>>     >
>>     > Personally I have nothing against "unconferences" or parallel
>>     meetings.
>>     > Every group has the right to organize events on their own taking
>>     > advantage of the occasion.
>>     >
>>     > However, the justifications for the "unconference" at the 10th
>>     IGF, as
>>     > presented in the announcement message below, start from false
>>     premises.
>>     > IGF is a UN event with special characteristics -- it is a pluralist
>>     > space (unlike, for example, the recently proposed Internet
>>     Social Forum,
>>     > which requires previous adherence to a letter of commitments, in
>>     > practice excluding many groups and individuals from the dialogue).
>>     >
>>     > IGF is what the different stakeholders make of it, and
>>     organized civil
>>     > society has always had space to propose and participate since
>>     the very
>>     > first IGF in 2006. I recommend that the promoters of parallel
>>     events
>>     > overview the more than 100 workshops approved for the upcoming
>>     IGF to
>>     > conclude that the event is far from being "controlled by
>>     business and
>>     > governments". The workshops' list (and descriptions) is here:
>>     >
>>     >
>>     http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals
>>     >
>>     > Here are some examples of workshops, among many others, which
>>     deal with
>>     > issues of obvious interest to civil society, with multistakeholder
>>     > participation (as required by IGF):
>>     >
>>     > No. 10 FOSS & a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development
>>     > No. 31 The “Right to be Forgotten” Rulings and their Implications
>>     > No. 49 No Grey Areas – Against Sexual Exploitation of Children
>>     > No. 60 Benchmarking ICT companies on digital rights
>>     > No. 68 Can civil society impact Global Internet Governance?
>>     > No. 96 #AfricanInternetRights: whose rights are these anyway?
>>     > No. 134 Organising an Internet Social Forum - Occupy the Internet
>>     > No. 152 Political dissent & online anonymity in developing
>>     countries
>>     > No. 186 A multistakeholder and humanrights approach to
>>     cybersecurity
>>     > No. 188 Spectrum allocations: challenges & opportunities at the
>>     edge
>>     > No. 214 Internet interconnection under regulatory pressure
>>     > No. 224 Civil Society and Information Controls in the Global South
>>     > No. 226 Internet governance and Open Government Data initiatives
>>     > No. 239 Bitcoin, Blockchain and Beyond: FLASH HELP!
>>     > No. 242 The Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability
>>     >
>>     > Workshops might be flash sessions, panels or roundtables,
>>     lasting from
>>     > 30 to 90 minutes. There are also the "dynamic coalitions",
>>     organized
>>     > groups of people and entities working together on several
>>     crucial themes
>>     > independently of the IGF (but stimulated by it and which hold
>>     meetings
>>     > during the event):
>>     >
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the
>>     Media on
>>     > the Internet
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Internet and Climate Change
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility (DC PR)
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries
>>     > Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things
>>     > Youth Coalition on Internet Governance
>>     >
>>     > It is relevant to notice that most of the more than 100 workshops
>>     > accepted this year were proposed by civil society organizations.
>>     > Proposals by governments and intergovernmental organizations
>>     were just a
>>     > few. Information on the proposing organizations is on the IGF
>>     Web site.
>>     > Also, nearly half of the approved workshops were proposed by
>>     > organizations from developing countries.
>>     >
>>     > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG/IGF) recommends that
>>     in every
>>     > workshop and main sessions there should be balanced
>>     participation of
>>     > panelists, discussants and other invitees taking into account the
>>     > diversity of nations, continents, sectors (government,
>>     business, civil
>>     > society, technical/academic community), and gender. This
>>     diversity has
>>     > been a relevant factor in approving the workshops, and the IGF
>>     > secretariat will work together with workshops' organizers to
>>     make sure
>>     > this directive is taken into account.
>>     >
>>     > I notice also that the promoters of the unconference call "on our
>>     > participants to resist seeing the problems of the Internet as only
>>     > technological and void of its materiality." It is quite
>>     possible that
>>     > other forums or entities, according to their scopes and goals,
>>     treat the
>>     > Internet from a purely technical point of view. This is
>>     certainly not
>>     > the case of the IGF, created precisely as a dialogue for
>>     non-technical
>>     > questions which do not find space in other forums. A rapid
>>     reading of
>>     > the workshops' descriptions listed above illustrates this fact
>>     quite
>>     > well. There are just a few approved workshops which limit
>>     themselves to
>>     > technical issues. Nearly all try to consider social, cultural,
>>     economic
>>     > and political aspects related to the development and use of the
>>     > Internet, always with a multistakeholder approach.
>>     >
>>     > I strongly recommend that you all participate in the IGF, either
>>     > remotely or in person, without excluding participation in other
>>     parallel
>>     > events as you wish, of course.
>>     >
>>     > fraternal regards
>>     >
>>     > --c.a.
>>     >
>>     > On 06/25/2015 12:47 PM, willi uebelherr wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >> Dear friends,
>>     >>
>>     >> 2014 we had the Internet Ungovernance Forum in Istanbul in
>>     Turkey. Now,
>>     >> this year, this people organize it in Brasil.
>>     >>
>>     >> I think, this is the most important event in this year to the
>>     theme:
>>     >> Internet Governance.
>>     >>
>>     >> many greetings, willi
>>     >> Porto Alegre, Brasil
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil
>>     >> November 2015
>>     >> João Pessoa - Paraíba, Brasil
>>     >> http://iuf.partidopirata.org/index-en.html
>>     >>
>>     >> Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil is for those of us who
>>     demand free,
>>     >> secure, and open internet for all!
>>     >>
>>     >> We're organizing the Internet Ungovernance Forum on November
>>     2015, for
>>     >> everyone who demand that fundamental freedoms, openness, unity
>>     and net
>>     >> neutrality remain the building blocks of the Internet. Our
>>     objective is
>>     >> to talk about the true and real problems of the internet, how
>>     can we
>>     >> solve them and to chart a path for action.
>>     >>
>>     >> Our forum will be in parallel to the Internet Governance Forum
>>     (IGF)
>>     >> 2015 which will also be held in João Pessoa in november.
>>     Interested
>>     >> parties all around the world will join and follow this
>>     important event.
>>     >> However, we see that at IGF the most urgent problems of the
>>     Internet do
>>     >> not get proper attention. Due to its format, the main
>>     perpetrators of
>>     >> many of the Internet's problems, for example the governments and
>>     >> corporations, are getting representation in IGF that they
>>     don’t deserve.
>>     >> Given these circumstances, we decided to take initiative to
>>     defend the
>>     >> Internet as we know it and to create a parallel space to raise the
>>     >> voices of civil society initiatives, activists and common people.
>>     >>
>>     >> For us, the most vital problems today are censorship and
>>     freedom of
>>     >> speech; surveillance and privacy; excessive commercialization and
>>     >> super-monopolies; protective, prohibitionist and conservative
>>     governance
>>     >> approaches; awful governance examples as in the case of Brasil
>>     and the
>>     >> list goes on. Further, we do not see any of these problems
>>     independent
>>     >> of the greater political, social and economic contexts in
>>     which the
>>     >> Internet and related digital infrastructures are embedded in.
>>     >>
>>     >> We want to reclaim the Internet as a fundamental
>>     infrastructure of our
>>     >> societies, cities, education, health, work, media, communications,
>>     >> culture and everyday activities.
>>     >>
>>     >> We call on our participants to resist seeing the problems of the
>>     >> Internet as only technological and void of its materiality.
>>     > ____________________________________________________________
>>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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
>
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




More information about the discuss mailing list