<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Please find as below, and enclosed...<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US"><font size="4"><i><b>Initial
response
of Just Net Coalition to the early draft of NetMundial
outcome document</b></i></font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">11th April, 2014</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">We commend the NetMundial
process for its openness in inviting, receiving and reviewing
submissions from the range of public interest actors as well as
private interest ones. We thank the Executive Multistakeholder
Committee (EMC) for developing the first draft of their report
which we had the opportunity to access through wikileaks and on
which we would like to comment in advance of the finalized report.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">We think that the EMC has
made a sincere effort to combine the various inputs into a
coherent whole and the resulting draft provides some useful
elements. We must observe however that the inputs cannot be viewed
as being truly representative of the totality of Internet users,
much less of the totality of the world’s population which should
benefit from the Internet, because the there is a great
dis-balance in terms of groups and constituencies that have
contributed inputs.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">We especially note
positively the mention of the 'necessary and proportionate'
principles for surveillance practices and the need for an
international treaty to deal with jurisdictional issues, cyber
crime and to restrain cyber weapons. We also commend the
recommendations on open and inclusive IG processes at all level,
particularly the inclusion of participation of all interested
actors. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Having said this, we must
express our dissatisfaction with the current document as having
largely failed to meet the high expectations of a new start that
the world community had placed on the NetMundial meeting. That
high expectation was not necessarily to achieve full consensus: we
know that many issues are contentious. The expectation was that
there would be a full and open airing of the issues, with frank
and robust discussions.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Reading between the lines,
it is clear that the document effectively endorses the current
Internet Governance status quo along with suggestions for minor
changes. While being able to present substantially new proposals
for change may have been difficult at such short notice, sadly we
see the document as not even opening up new directions, and in
fact perhaps closing down some that are currently being discussed
in other places. In our view, the document avoids dealing with
contentious issues. We believe that it is essential that the
existence of such contentious issues be openly acknowledged, in
particular since some of those issues have been under discussion
for years and are of fundamental importance.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US"> The document does not
contain any forwarding looking proposals for addressing the
absence of any means or mechanisms at the global level that could
democratically address the urgent and important public policy
issues that currently face the global community. Further the
document fails even to appropriately frame the problem. In this
sense it represents a retreat from the Tunis Agenda – which is
surprising, since during the 10 years since the Tunis agenda was
written the the global importance of public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet has only exponentially increased in
importance. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">It is noteworthy that the
Tunis agenda is referred to only once in the whole document, and
in that instance as indicating quite incorrectly that that the
Tunis Agenda has been implemented: “The implementation of the
Tunis Agenda has demonstrated the value of the Multistakeholder
model in Internet governance.” Such a statement, suggesting
closure on Tunis Agenda, is really surprising especially when
there is a UN working Group that is currently mandated to develop
recommendations to 'fully implement Tunis Agenda' especially with
regard to the key issue of addressing Internet-related public
policy issues. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">After saying that
mechanisms may be needed to address 'emerging' public policy
issues (using the unfortunate term 'orphan issues' which gives a
kind of 'residual' status to one of the most significant set of
global public policy issues) the draft veers towards recommending
(1) Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as the principal site for
addressing of these issue (although in a bit apologetic and round
about language) and (2) improving information flows between
existing fora dealing with Internet-related public policy issues.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">While some believe that
IGF needs to be strengthened as a global policy dialogue space,
and that all kinds of information flows between concerned
institutions enhanced, this recipe for 'institutional reform'
basically just rubber stamps the status quo of global Internet
governance. This approach would mean that there would continue to
be no global policy mechanisms to respond to the range of issues
that have and are emerging globally concerning the impact of the
Internet in economic restructuring and in helping to ameliorate
the extreme concentrations of economic, social, cultural and
geo-political controls that are emerging on and through the global
Internet. The current draft completely fails at its central task,
which is to give direction for responding to the principal problem
facing the world today: how to channel the extremely powerful
forces of the Internet into the support of the public good. It is
this that we and many others believe to be the central challenge
and opportunity for the NetMundial meeting.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">The second major issue
with the current document is that while it refers repeatedly to
“multistakeholderism” and “stakeholders” as providing the
frameworks for Internet Governance nowhere does it mention
democracy or how multistakeholderism might contribute to or
enhance the fundamental elements of democracy on which so much of
human rights Internet freedom and social justice are based. This
is truly alarming given the stridency with which so many actors
are attempting to ensure that those pursuing private interests and
the corporate sector have an equal role with those legitimately
representing the public interest in the determination of public
policy. It must be remembered that the Tunis Agenda repeatedly
speaks of 'democratic (processes)' when referring to global
Internet governance. Omission of this primary political norm from
the NetMndial text is therefore highly objectionable and
completely unacceptable.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">The document must
therefore underline that </p>
<ol>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">while the formulation
of technical standards and technical coordination activities
may most effectively be undertaken through an “equal footing
of all stakeholders”, there is no basis for extending such a
formulation or such mechanisms beyond the technical into
broader areas of public policy decision making </p>
</li>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">whereas all
stakeholders should be able to freely input into public policy
making processes, and even have a right to know how their
inputs were considered, the right to make the final decisions
on public policies rests with legitimate public interest
actors that hold political responsibilities arising from
formal democratic processes (this was also the process
followed for the famous 'Marco Civil' legislation, and there
can and should be no other kind of process for legitimate
public policy making) .</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">While the draft document
mentions the 'respective roles and responsibilities' of
stakeholders in two places, these references are mitigated through
questionable language in many other places in the document. The
document should therefore clearly declare that MSism outside of
the technical sphere is only operative within and as a contributor
to the more fundamental democratic framework, and as well the term
democratic should in all places be used in conjunction with the
multistakeholder terminology. As the document calls for further
discussions on 'respective roles and responsibilities' it should
also be mentioned that such a discussion should take place within
a larger discussion and debate on the relationship between
democracy and MSism. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Specifically, one new item
should be added to the Human Rights catalog under II on page 3:
“Democracy: everyone shall have the right and opportunity to take
part in the conduct of public affairs and public policy decisions,
directly or through freely chosen representatives.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">A third issue with the
current draft is the almost total neglect of global
Internet-related public policy issues of an economic, social and
cultural nature. While development and cultural diversity is
mentioned in the context of “Internet principles”, there is
nothing concerning key global public policy issues of this nature
on the operations part, which though, admirably, does talk about
global agreements on surveillance and cyber peace. As the Internet
increasingly determines the global distribution of economic,
social and cultural resources, we need global mechanisms to deal
with the emerging distortions in such distribution. It was hoped
that with a developing country taking the lead for the first time
in steering a global IG discussion, such issues would come to the
fore, not only in terms of statements of concerns, but also in
terms of actual proposals for addressing them. The draft document
needs significant improvement in this regard. (Also, a full
mention of the term 'net neutrality' is needed and not just a
reference to 'neutrality' which can be interpreted in different
ways.)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Recognition of the
Internet as a public good and a global commons must be stated as a
primary principle underlying various Internet related public
policies. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Further, even on issues
such as democratization of technical coordination functions and
their oversight, the document does not go beyond what has recently
been declared by the US government and as is being pursued by
ICANN. There is a need to discuss – without any preconditions –
what kind of structure is most appropriate for managing the DNS
and other critical Internet resources. We must for instance affirm
the need for freeing such technical coordination functions from
the jurisdiction of any one country, and the simultaneous need for
appropriate oversight of these functions by the global community.
<b> </b>Specifically, the following should be added at the end of
the second paragraph of 4 of III, on page 9, add: “The operational
aspects must not be subject to the law of any one country, that
is, they must benefit from immunity of jurisdiction.”</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in" lang="en-US">Given the limited time to
evaluate and study this document, we are of the view that it
should not be endorsed or approved at the meeting, it should be
noted. It will then provide a useful input for further
discussions.</p>
</body>
</html>