[discuss] CSCG Letter to Transitional Council re NETMundial Initiative

Fri Nov 28 16:01:00 UTC 2014

Thanks, Milton. A lot of work went into finding the way to handle such a
controversial topic. I think it was an exercise in being 'assertive, but
not aggressive' (at least for me).

It is an ongoing process, and will be constantly re-evaluated and
revisited, so we need people to stay aware and engaged. I for one, think we
will continue to adapt, and use this opportunity if it works for us.

Cheers,
Ginger

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
-----

*Upcoming online courses: *Capacity Development, Humanitarian Diplomacy,
Introduction to Internet Governance, Public Diplomacy, Diplomatic Theory
and Practice. http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Ian, Robin, Ginger, Jeremy and Mawaki:
>
>
>
> This is a good letter, I think it handles the division within civil
> society over NMI involvement quite well.
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ian Peter
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:27 PM
> *To:* discuss at 1net.org
> *Subject:* [discuss] CSCG Letter to Transitional Council re NETMundial
> Initiative
>
>
>
> Below is a copy of a letter sent yesterday by Internet Governance Civil
> Society Coordination Group (CSCG) to the NETMundial Transitional Council.
> The letter follows from firstly a discussion with NMI as regards our
> concerns with process, suggesting some more acceptable alternatives, and
> secondly a period of consultation with members of various civil society
> coalitions about this and other concerns.
>
>
>
> FYI
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
> LETTER FOLLOWS
>
>
>
> Dear Virgilio, Richard and Fadi,
>
>
>
> As members of the Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group
> (CSCG), we write to express our appreciation for your openness in working
> with us to negotiate the terms of civil society’s participation in the
> NETmundial Initiative; in particular, by accommodating our expectation,
> drawn from the NETmundial Principles, that if we are to participate on the
> Coordination Council, we should nominate our own representatives.
>
>
>
> Since our initial agreement on this principle, we have been consulting
> with our constituents about whether civil society ought to avail itself of
> this opportunity at all.  We must say that this has been a difficult
> question, at the end of which there remain some very significant misgivings
> across a broad segment of civil society about the merits of our prospective
> involvement.
>
>
>
> Among the underlying concerns of many are that the involvement of the
> World Economic Forum in the initiative signals an attempt by economic and
> political elites to secure a central role in Internet governance; that the
> Initiative has been organised in a top-down manner that privileges its
> three promoters above other stakeholders; and that devoting time and
> resources to the Initiative may detract from other processes such as the
> Internet Governance Forum.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, others recognise the opportunity that exists for civil
> society to help shape the NETmundial Initiative into a mechanism (but not
> the only mechanism) that can advance the NETmundial roadmap. Despite
> significant shortcomings in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement
> stemming from influence exerted by powerful actors towards the end of the
> process, much of the document, including the roadmap, does enjoy broad
> civil society support.
>
>
>
> OUR INVOLVEMENT AND PROCESS
>
>
>
> In the end we have decided to facilitate the involvement of those from
> civil society who do wish to apply for membership of the Coordination
> Council, while acknowledging others have decided as a matter of principle
> that they do not wish to be involved—and indeed would rather that civil
> society did not participate at all. We acknowledge and respect that our
> colleagues from Just Net Coalition have taken that position and will not be
> participating with us in this exercise.
>
>
>
> The process we have agreed to work with is
>
>
>
> 1. At the close of nominations (December 6), CSCG Nomcom will review all
> nominations for civil society participation and evaluate each candidate’s
> suitability.
>
> 2. CSCG Nomcom will recommend one candidate per geographic region, and
> submits names to Transitional Council with reasons.
>
> 3. If necessary, NMI Transitional Council will convene a (virtual) meeting
> with CSCG Nomcom to discuss any issues arising, with a view to reaching a
> rough consensus agreement if there are any issues with our nominations. If
> there is a strong dissenting voice from another area of civil society they
> may also be invited to participate after discussion.
>
>
>
> CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
>
>
>
> Although we will work with the NETmundial Initiative’s organising partners
> to select willing civil society representatives from amongst those who
> self-nominate through the Initiative’s nomination process, we also outline
> five simple conditions that we believe representatives are likely to affirm
> following their appointment to the Coordination Council:
>
>
>
> 1. We would like the Co-ordination Council to discuss whether CGI.br, WEF
> and ICANN should have permanent membership of the Coordination Council and
> what that implies. Whilst it is acknowledged that the above organisations
> are jointly funding the operational expenses of the Initiative for its
> first year, this might not remain so. We are not convinced that funding
> support is sufficient justification for such a role, and we believe that
> the full Coordination Council itself should approve any permanent seats and
> what that implies.
>
>
>
> 2. To the extent that a stated objective of the Coordination Council is
> "promoting the distributed Internet governance model,” we want to point out
> that the status quo in Internet governance does not represent the
> fulfilment of this model. The NETmundial Initiative should not be used to
> legitimise existing inequalities and deficiencies of the present system and
> should not hold civil society back from advocating necessary reforms.
>
>
>
> 3. While we acknowledge the progressive elements of the NETmundial
> Multistakeholder Statement, it is not the final and definitive statement of
> Internet governance principles; indeed the Statement itself acknowledges
> that it is only a work in progress. So we do not see the NETmundial roadmap
> as an immutable document. We look forward to its refinement and/or
> augmentation and hope that NMI ensures a bottom up collaborative process to
> undertake this work.
>
>
>
> 4. A key performance indicator for the NETmundial Initiative must be the
> extent to which its activities strengthen and support the Internet
> Governance Forum, which remains the most significant global hub for general
> multi-stakeholder Internet governance policy discussions. If the IGF
> develops the capacity to assume further activities that currently might not
> fall within their capabilities, this should be facilitated, not opposed.
>
>
>
> 5. We will wish to evaluate from time to time whether this engagement is
> providing effective and worthwhile results for our constituencies.
>
>
>
> We trust that our participation in this Initiative can be accepted with
> these conditions, and we look forward to working with you to select a
> balanced, inclusive and capable slate of civil society nominees to join the
> Coordination Council.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *CSCG Nomcom for NMI Co ordination Council *
>
>
>
> *Participating member coalitions*
>
>
>
> Association for Progressive Communications, represented by Chat Garcia
> Ramilo, Deputy Executive Director
>
>
>
> Best Bits, represented by Jeremy Malcolm, Steering Committee member
>
>
>
> Diplo Foundation, represented by Ginger (Virginia) Paque, Internet
> Governance Programmes
>
>
>
> Internet Governance Caucus, represented by Dr Mawaki Chango, Co-Coordinator
>
>
>
> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) represented by Robin Gross,
> NCSG Executive Committee
>
>
>
> Ian Peter, Independent Chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141128/a3d528c5/attachment.html>