[discuss] NetMundial Initiative
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Thu Aug 14 12:00:59 UTC 2014
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140814/6ef4bc04/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the discuss
mailing list