[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