[discuss] NetMundial Initiative
Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Thu Aug 14 17:33:27 UTC 2014
Excellent contribution, Anriette!
frt rgds
--c.a.
On 08/14/2014 09:00 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
More information about the discuss
mailing list