[discuss] another netmundial? - was 💰I think I've found it!

Carlos Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Sun Sep 3 13:27:30 UTC 2017 

In this dialogue on a new edition of NETmundial (NETmundial+5 is one of
the ideas, suggested by Wolf), we need to keep in mind (although it
seems obvious) that any new initiative of follow-up, review, next steps
etc should not be dependent on Brazil's initiatives. This time passed
with the parlamentarian coup of 2016. Given the possible transition of
CGI.br which may be imposed by the current government, probably
destroying what is left of our mulltistakeholder "model", I am not even
sure we can count on CGI.br in the near future for leadership or
significant support to any initiative.

So, let us think of the possibilities suggested by Wolf. This would then
be in 2019. I am of course totally for it and I am sure so is organized
civil society in Brazil which follows closely on IG issues (like the
100+ Coalition on Netowrk Rights among others), if we can repeat the
method, the process, and the final recommendations' building by consensus.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 03/09/2017 02:41, Ian Peter wrote:
> Thanks Seun for raising this possibility. Unfortunately I have to report
> that the revised Netmundial Initiative is now dormant, for a number of
> reasons; one of which was a change of government in Brazil which wanted
> to distance itself from any achievements of the previous government; but
> there were many other reasons as well. And although some of us think a
> second Netmundial Conference would be beneficial, I don’t know of any
> initiative to get this underway.
>  
> But to also look at Olivier’s question: if this list is to be disbanded,
> I do hope it is archived, because I think it does have some unique
> historical significance. There are not many global statements that deal
> with the range of issues confronting the Internet – and this one is the
> only one I know of which was developed and adopted in a bottom-up
> multistakeholder fashion. So I think what went on here was unique and
> should not be lost from the historical record.
>  
> As regards any future; well, I must admit to a great deal of frustration
> personally at the way some of the issues we discussed at Netmundial have
> evolved since then. Personal data protection has definitely got a lot
> worse, both from a surveillance point of view and also as regards use of
> personal data for commercial purposes. And anyone trying to address
> these issues,and particularly their transboundary dimensions, seems
> confronted by a very cosy relationship between large internet
> corporations and a few key large governments which seems to go along the
> lines of “give us easy access to your data for surveillance purposes,
> and we won’t regulate you”. Win-win for them, the rest of us are I
> believe losing some fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
>  
> Some similar issues arise when we get to discuss cybersecurity and
> cyberwarfare, to raise a couple of other issues. These are not being
> addressed in a sensible manner, and I believe cannot be addressed
> effectively without the sort of comprehensive multistakeholder
> co-operation we saw at Netmundial.
>  
> So if this list fades, I hope some initiative gets underway to address
> these issues and looks at cross-stakeholder discussion on emerging
> issues in a world where nation state jurisdiction and the power of
> global internet corporations are on a collision course where nobody
> wins. I have just mentioned a few issues above, there are many more
> where I believe some concerted action and co-operation would be beneficial.
>  
> Ian Peter
>  
> PS Interested to know if anyone here has been stopped at US borders and
> denied entry until they hand over their Facebook password? I hear
> reports of this happening, and certainly an application for US visa
> includes a (non-compulsory) question where you nominate the details of
> your Facebook and Twitter accounts. Practices like this are awful and
> should never become widespread. 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 3, 2017 12:45 PM
> *To:* Marilyn Cade
> *Cc:* discuss
> *Subject:* Re: [discuss] 💰I think I've found it!
>  
> Hello Marilyn, all
>  
> You raised an important question and my response will be... "perhaps but
> what will that be"?
>  
> We had this discussion sometime last year and Ian made a few points[1]
> one of them relating to a NetMundia in the making and I wonder if that
> is still in the pipeline? Perhaps this list can come alive again.
> 
> Regards
> 1. http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-April/005201.html
> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>  
> On Sep 2, 2017 11:10 PM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>     Or, should we repurpose this list? And make it meaningful again?
> 
>      
> 
>     M
> 
> 
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* discuss-bounces at 1net.org <discuss-bounces at 1net.org> on
>     behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>     *Sent:* Saturday, September 2, 2017 5:54 PM
>     *To:* Peter H. Hellmonds
>     *Cc:* discuss
>     *Subject:* Re: [discuss] 💰I think I've found it!
>      
>     Dear Peter,
> 
>     As with any retirement, I wonder about two questions:
> 
>     1. should this mailing list be archived? Is it a piece of Internet
>     history?
>     2. is the 1net.org <http://1net.org> domain & web site going to be
>     archived too, beyond archive.org <http://archive.org> ?
> 
>     Warmest regards,
> 
>     Olivier
> 
>     On 02/09/2017 19:26, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
>>     Looks like it’s time to give this list a rest. Other than faked
>>     mails with spam where all of us know they would never ever come
>>     from Patrik there seems to be no relevant traffic left here on the
>>     list. Unless some real human being tells me there is a value to
>>     remain on this list, I’ll be out in a few days. 
>>      
>>     Cheers
>>     Peter
>>
>>     Peter H. Hellmonds
>>     <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
>>     +49 160 360 2852 <tel:+49%20160%203602852>
>>
>>     On Aug 31, 2017, at 02:19, Harvey Moses <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>
>>     Yo!
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Please look into the products I've just found, I think that's what
>>     you were looking for. Take a look (phishing link removed) 
>>
>>     Yours sincerely, Harvey Moses (<— dead giveaway that this is a
>>     fake mail!!)
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     discuss mailing list
>>     discuss at 1net.org
>>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>     <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     discuss mailing list
>>     discuss at 1net.org
>>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>     <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     discuss mailing list
>     discuss at 1net.org
>     http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>     <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
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
[emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário]
[emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]

Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br

More information about the discuss mailing list